Objectivity

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Objectivity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:25 pm

phyllo wrote:
No he does that all the time. I tell him that I appreciate having him around and I walk on eggshells, but still it blows up at the end then he leaves. The topic doesn't matter.
It's more than that. Take this exchange as an example:
KT : And again, you can see, you don't have ia mirror in front of your head, they can't they do. They can't perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.

S : No it's subject to reason.
KT : As if that was mutually exclusive and somehow explained away my point.

S : Idk what your point is except to be contrary to whatever I say.
You think that any time that someone is reasoning then he is being subjective. Therefore you think "subject to reason" as being an adequate and sufficient response to KT's point.

KT thinks that objectivity does not exclude reasoning. Therefore he thinks "subject to reason" as an inadequate response.
It's even more than this, though I think what you are laying out is excellent meta-communication. I think I understand his position. But since he uses metaphors that include the idea of one party directly seeing whatever 'it' is and other people having their head in the sand -iow not directly seeing the thing - objectivity is implicit. Of course since it involves human perception, subjectivity is involved for boht parties, but the metaphor implies that one person, the one without his head in the sand, is in more direct contact with the objects, and hence more. I have tried to show elsewhere perhaps that I see subjective elements in all perception. For him it is binary. If there are subjective facets, then it is subjective period. For me the two are not mutually exclusive. But further his own way of framing the difference between him and the people he hates, is to claim greater objectivity, greater access to objects.

Then you don't see why he is frustrated and annoyed.
I get annoyed that he happily and openly contradicts himself, when it suits his purposes, while at the same time taking higher higher rationality ground.

The same thing happened in the "heads in the sand" analogy. You two looked at it from entirely different perspectives and could not understand what the other was talking about. (He thinks looking around and "seeing" is objective and you think looking around and "seeing" is subjective.)
No, I do get his perspective. Since it is a human perceiving, it is subjective. and this is true. But since he himself distinguishes between his seeing - not head in sand, able to look - whereas republicans have their head in the sand - not able to see - he is making a distinction based on perception that is connected to objects of perception, which is more objective. Everything in his system is either/or. Except when he tries to explain the differences. Suddenly he is implicitly making the claim to being more objective, more in touch with the objects.

But how could anyone recognize that? You see? You cannot see what other people would see, but you think because you see it, that other people will see it also and proclaim it objective for that reason while all along what is seen is subject to the neurological wiring necessary to see it. So by proclaiming it objective, you're describing what you have not seen because you have not verified that everyone else in the universe, regardless of neurology, would see it the same way.
You don't have the same "wiring" as almost every other human on this planet? That's odd. How can you understand anything about anyone? How can you communicate? How can you function in the world? How can you use common objects and tools?

It doesn't even stop at humans. Animals and plants find the same objects in their way. A mice experience walls. Bugs experience tables. Plants turn towards the sun.

They are reacting to an external reality.
Right and he makes the claim that it is all subjective, and yet they are stupid and evil and making real horrible changes to the world we share.

He wants to have his cake and eat it also.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:53 pm

phyllo wrote:
No he does that all the time. I tell him that I appreciate having him around and I walk on eggshells, but still it blows up at the end then he leaves. The topic doesn't matter.
It's more than that. Take this exchange as an example:
KT : And again, you can see, you don't have ia mirror in front of your head, they can't they do. They can't perceive objects. Their ideas about reality are clouded by the fact that they are not looking at it. Again objectivity is assumed.

S : No it's subject to reason.
KT : As if that was mutually exclusive and somehow explained away my point.

S : Idk what your point is except to be contrary to whatever I say.
You think that any time that someone is reasoning then he is being subjective. Therefore you think "subject to reason" as being an adequate and sufficient response to KT's point.

KT thinks that objectivity does not exclude reasoning. Therefore he thinks "subject to reason" as an inadequate response.

Then you don't see why he is frustrated and annoyed.

The same thing happened in the "heads in the sand" analogy. You two looked at it from entirely different perspectives and could not understand what the other was talking about. (He thinks looking around and "seeing" is objective and you think looking around and "seeing" is subjective.)

But he doesn't seem to mind going round and round with iambiguous. He has infinite patience with him, but I only get a thimble's worth. Not that I'm jealous, I'm just saying there must be something else setting him off... something specific to me.

But how could anyone recognize that? You see? You cannot see what other people would see, but you think because you see it, that other people will see it also and proclaim it objective for that reason while all along what is seen is subject to the neurological wiring necessary to see it. So by proclaiming it objective, you're describing what you have not seen because you have not verified that everyone else in the universe, regardless of neurology, would see it the same way.
You don't have the same "wiring" as almost every other human on this planet? That's odd. How can you understand anything about anyone? How can you communicate? How can you function in the world? How can you use common objects and tools?

Remember the Feynman example? Two people count with different parts of their brains. They are both human, yet see the world dramatically different.

And I read somewhere that Einstein had some speech problem when he was a child that caused his brain to form differently that gave him an advantage in abstract thought, so he used a part of the brain that most people would use one way, he used it for a different task.

It doesn't even stop at humans. Animals and plants find the same objects in their way. A mice experience walls. Bugs experience tables. Plants turn towards the sun.

Well, the plants that survive turn towards the sun. The plants that happen to grow the wrong way just happen to not survive long enough to be noticed. A bug that doesn't experience tables may not survive. Mice that can't differentiate walls from floors will not survive.

They are reacting to an external reality.

I get what you're saying, but external reality is not objective reality. Any reality experienced will be subject to the means there is to experience what there is. Dark matter, if it exists, can only experience gravity; light doesn't exist to it. That which has no affect, does not exist. But you'll say that light indeed does exist whether or not dark matter experiences it. Yes but only to us because we contain charge and light exists subject to that charge, which is something dark matter doesn't have. If there were no charge, then there could be no light, so the existence of light is subject to the existence of charge and light is not objective. If light were objective, it would exist regardless if charge exists, but light is caused by charge, so it couldn't exist in absence of charge.

Existence can only be thought of in terms of something and there is no way to conceptualize abstract existence, so any existence can only be regarded as subjective.

I'm not sure it's even about feelings. For instance:

"God exists. I haven't seen God and I can't prove God exists, so I didn't arrive at the conclusion that God exists by reason, but nonetheless, God exists." <-- Is that statement stemming from feelings?
"Feelings" was the word I chose because gives a indication of the personal nature of the process. (A process inaccessible to other people, as opposed to reasoning which could be repeated by others. )

Yes I understand what you mean by "feelings" as opposed to "reason".

So in the case of your example, yes, it's a feeling that God exists.

So objective claims stem from feelings (as opposed to reason)?
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 6:15 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:It's even more than this, though I think what you are laying out is excellent meta-communication. I think I understand his position. But since he uses metaphors that include the idea of one party directly seeing whatever 'it' is and other people having their head in the sand -iow not directly seeing the thing - objectivity is implicit. Of course since it involves human perception, subjectivity is involved for boht parties,

Subjectivity is required for both parties so why are you trying to rope me into conceding that I'm making objective claims? And then you say I'm contradicting myself.

but the metaphor implies that one person, the one without his head in the sand, is in more direct contact with the objects, and hence more.

The one with the head in the sand is being willfully ignorant. "I don't want to see because I need to be right, and if I see, then I might be wrong, which isn't an option."

I have tried to show elsewhere perhaps that I see subjective elements in all perception. For him it is binary.

The universe is a duality. Yin/yang. I can't help that.

Then you don't see why he is frustrated and annoyed.
I get annoyed that he happily and openly contradicts himself, when it suits his purposes, while at the same time taking higher higher rationality ground.

I can't see how I'm contradicting myself and you're treading close to making fun of a potential handicap I have. If I'm making an error, kindly point it out instead of attacking my integrity that I'd be willfully ignorant to save being wrong. Perhaps I'm having a lot of difficulty understanding your chosen conveyance.

The same thing happened in the "heads in the sand" analogy. You two looked at it from entirely different perspectives and could not understand what the other was talking about. (He thinks looking around and "seeing" is objective and you think looking around and "seeing" is subjective.)
No, I do get his perspective. Since it is a human perceiving, it is subjective. and this is true. But since he himself distinguishes between his seeing - not head in sand, able to look - whereas republicans have their head in the sand - not able to see - he is making a distinction based on perception that is connected to objects of perception, which is more objective. Everything in his system is either/or. Except when he tries to explain the differences. Suddenly he is implicitly making the claim to being more objective, more in touch with the objects.

Subjects being more or less in touch with objects isn't a test for objectivity since objectivity has no subject. Like the claim god exists has no subject to observe that god exists nor provide logic that leads to that conclusion, but the existence of god is simply asserted to be true and axiomized objectively.

Right and he makes the claim that it is all subjective, and yet they are stupid and evil and making real horrible changes to the world we share.

My point is that you share the same belief, so why are you attacking me instead of being allies and accusing me of being objective when you yourself just finished saying that both parties are being subjective?

The only thing I can figure from months of exchanges with you is that you don't like me because I'm me and you'll always seek to be contrary to me for whatever reason, even if it subverts your own goals and you'll defend your own enemies just to have a go at me. I don't understand the impetus for that.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:01 pm

But he doesn't seem to mind going round and round with iambiguous. He has infinite patience with him, but I only get a thimble's worth. Not that I'm jealous, I'm just saying there must be something else setting him off... something specific to me.
I don't know why he is wasting so much time on Iambig. I don't think KT's responses to Iambig can be characterized as patience. He seems annoyed and frustrated a lot of the time now.

KT has gone off on me as well. It is what it is.
Remember the Feynman example? Two people count with different parts of their brains. They are both human, yet see the world dramatically different.
In other words, they are both objectively counting. It's not like one says 1+1=2 and the other says 1+1=3. Cause that's what "seeing the world differently" implies should happen. If you black box the brain, then both counters are basically the same.
Well, the plants that survive turn towards the sun. The plants that happen to grow the wrong way just happen to not survive long enough to be noticed. A bug that doesn't experience tables may not survive. Mice that can't differentiate walls from floors will not survive.
Right. They objectively respond to objective reality and that helps them survive.
So in the case of your example, yes, it's a feeling that God exists.

So objective claims stem from feelings (as opposed to reason)?
In your example, the statement "God exists" is not an objective claim because it is not based on any external reality. It came purely from that person's mind without reference to anything else.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby iambiguous » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:37 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
iambiguous wrote:
its a question of what those of our own species are able to demonstrate is true objectively for all rational human beings


There are two types of objectivity : relative and absolute

Relative objectivity is inter subjective consensus that has the rigour of evidence or proof or logic or reason to support it [ it is
not merely popular opinion for that does not require any rigour at all ] This is the type of objectivity that you are referring to


In other words, given the gap between that which any particular one of us construe to be the objective truth and all that must be [can be] known about existence itself, there appear to be things and relationships that reflect about as far as we seem able to go now in regards to objectivity itself.

The laws of nature. Mathematics. The physical world around us. The presumably "either/or" world.

surreptitious75 wrote: Absolute objectivity is that which is held to be true even though it cannot be demonstrated such as for example the existence of God
Although given that belief in God is subjective then absolute objectivity must logically also be subjective. Ones position on this is dependent upon
whether you are a theist or an atheist : theists will say absolute objectivity exists because God exists while atheists will say the complete opposite


That's how it appears to be until an actual existing God chooses to make His presense [and powers] known.

Then there are quandaries that revolve around whether absolute objectivity encompasses a wholly determined universe. Or encompasses a complete understanding of why there is something instead of nothing at all. Those really and truly mindboggling questions.

surreptitious75 wrote: This is incidentally why you cannot find an objective answer to your abortion dilemma : anti abortionists are theists and pro abortionists are atheists


This is simply not the case. For example:
https://www.facebook.com/AtheistsAgainstAbortion/
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-chr ... dd-peters/

From my frame of mind, individual value judgments here are rooted more in dasein. In the trajectory of experiences one has had that predisposed him or her to one rather than another set of values.

And, as I see it, the reason particular individuals [like me] do not embrace an objective answer is because no one has yet been able to provide one. Which [however] does not mean that one does not exist.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:38 pm

The universe is a duality. Yin/yang. I can't help that.
There is no pure yin and there is no pure yang. Each contains some of the other.

In other words, there is no split into two. There is no either/or.
In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng, lit. "dark-bright", "negative-positive") is a concept of dualism in ancient Chinese philosophy, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Jakob » Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:45 pm

Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:10 pm

phyllo wrote:
But he doesn't seem to mind going round and round with iambiguous. He has infinite patience with him, but I only get a thimble's worth. Not that I'm jealous, I'm just saying there must be something else setting him off... something specific to me.
I don't know why he is wasting so much time on Iambig. I don't think KT's responses to Iambig can be characterized as patience. He seems annoyed and frustrated a lot of the time now.

KT has gone off on me as well. It is what it is.

Well, he's aware of it so perhaps it will turn out ok.

Remember the Feynman example? Two people count with different parts of their brains. They are both human, yet see the world dramatically different.
In other words, they are both objectively counting. It's not like one says 1+1=2 and the other says 1+1=3. Cause that's what "seeing the world differently" implies should happen. If you black box the brain, then both counters are basically the same.

Except that one can read and count while the other can talk and count, so the outcome is different.

Well, the plants that survive turn towards the sun. The plants that happen to grow the wrong way just happen to not survive long enough to be noticed. A bug that doesn't experience tables may not survive. Mice that can't differentiate walls from floors will not survive.
Right. They objectively respond to objective reality and that helps them survive.

I'm not sure what "objectively respond" means. You mean all plants respond the same way? Well no, some plants do the wrong thing and don't survive. Some plants may prefer shade. Trees send branches in seeming random directions like they have no awareness of where the sun is, and the ones that find the light survive while the ones growing in the shade die off. My job as an arborist is to prune off the branches that are hopeless.

And "objective reality", I don't know what that means either except to say that the sun exists independent of anything else. You want it to mean that all plants see the objective reality of the sun, but I label that a popular subjective reality that most plants seem equipped to see the sun as part of their reality. Going back to Mad Man's point, I can tell what you mean and you can tell what I mean even though we define terms differently. I just don't think you've realized that abstract existence isn't possible... or at least isn't anything we can conceptualize.

So in the case of your example, yes, it's a feeling that God exists.

So objective claims stem from feelings (as opposed to reason)?
In your example, the statement "God exists" is not an objective claim because it is not based on any external reality. It came purely from that person's mind without reference to anything else.

If nothing else, this is a prime example of how people think differently lol

So I'm saying it's an objective claim because god exists regardless of any context, is subject to nothing, is not a product of deduction or vision or any sense, so god is the observerless object.

You are saying it's subjective because the claim emanated from a person's head without being a product of deduction or vision that could be shared or verified by others.

Ok, so what is the fundamental difference in how we're seeing it? Now it's become a cognitive exercise lol

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:16 pm

phyllo wrote:
The universe is a duality. Yin/yang. I can't help that.
There is no pure yin and there is no pure yang. Each contains some of the other.

In other words, there is no split into two. There is no either/or.
In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng, lit. "dark-bright", "negative-positive") is a concept of dualism in ancient Chinese philosophy, describing how seemingly opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

Positive contains some negative? Yes contains some no? On contains some off? True contains some false? North contains some south?

I agree they are connected, but I don't see how they contain the elements of the other.

Yin was actually the dark, north side of the mountain while yang was the bright, south side.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:22 pm

So I'm saying it's an objective claim because god exists regardless of any context, is subject to nothing, is not a product of deduction or vision or any sense, so god is the observerless object.

You are saying it's subjective because the claim emanated from a person's head without being a product of deduction or vision that could be shared or verified by others.
I know that's what you are saying.

Notice how people are responding.

Are they agreeing? Does it make sense to them? What are their objections? Does anyone think that objective claims are without a context?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 8:51 pm

Positive contains some negative? Yes contains some no? On contains some off? True contains some false? North contains some south?

I agree they are connected, but I don't see how they contain the elements of the other.
Yes. That is how it works. There are no absolutes. There are no hard divisions. Language and thought are only approximations of reality. Nothing we say is entirely true or false.

That's not the usual thinking in the West. Here, it's this-that and nothing in between.

Remember when Ecmandu pointed out that the North Pole is south of Polaris. That's Yin/Yang.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:06 pm

More Yin/Yang :

Your enemy is your friend. He is helping you to get better, stronger.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:52 pm

phyllo wrote:
So I'm saying it's an objective claim because god exists regardless of any context, is subject to nothing, is not a product of deduction or vision or any sense, so god is the observerless object.

You are saying it's subjective because the claim emanated from a person's head without being a product of deduction or vision that could be shared or verified by others.
I know that's what you are saying.

Notice how people are responding.

Are they agreeing? Does it make sense to them? What are their objections? Does anyone think that objective claims are without a context?

I have no idea but appealing to popularity is meaningless. May as well ask a tree what it thinks.

Yes. That is how it works. There are no absolutes. There are no hard divisions. Language and thought are only approximations of reality. Nothing we say is entirely true or false.

That's not the usual thinking in the West. Here, it's this-that and nothing in between.

Remember when Ecmandu pointed out that the North Pole is south of Polaris. That's Yin/Yang.

So then I guess nothing contains something. Ecmandu ought to have fun with that one lol

And the north pole is not south of polaris.

Your enemy is your friend. He is helping you to get better, stronger.

Eh, sometimes that may be true, but if my enemy kills me, then clearly he's not making me stronger.

Nietzsche was braindead the day he said that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger. That which doesn't kill someone leaves them half-dead.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:03 pm

I have no idea but appealing to popularity is meaningless. May as well ask a tree what it thinks.
That is problematic in so many ways.

The people around are dumb? They don't have an understanding of life or the human experience? They don't have anything to teach you?
So then I guess nothing contains something. Ecmandu ought to have fun with that one lol

And the north pole is not south of polaris.
That's one way to look at it.
Eh, sometimes that may be true, but if my enemy kills me, then clearly he's not making me stronger.

Nietzsche was braindead the day he said that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger. That which doesn't kill someone leaves them half-dead.
I see that the teacup is full.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Serendipper » Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:12 pm

phyllo wrote:
I have no idea but appealing to popularity is meaningless. May as well ask a tree what it thinks.
That is problematic in so many ways.

The people around are dumb? They don't have an understanding of life or the human experience? They don't have anything to teach you?

I didn't go that far, but truth isn't a popularity contest.

Remember this?

Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

10,000 people vs one genius.

Eh, sometimes that may be true, but if my enemy kills me, then clearly he's not making me stronger.

Nietzsche was braindead the day he said that which doesn't kill me makes me stronger. That which doesn't kill someone leaves them half-dead.
I see that the teacup is full.

I thought it was half empty.
Serendipper
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:03 am

phyllo wrote:
But he doesn't seem to mind going round and round with iambiguous. He has infinite patience with him, but I only get a thimble's worth. Not that I'm jealous, I'm just saying there must be something else setting him off... something specific to me.
I don't know why he is wasting so much time on Iambig. I don't think KT's responses to Iambig can be characterized as patience. He seems annoyed and frustrated a lot of the time now.
I find Iamb fascinating. Unfortunately. But I have certainly stomped off in a huff, often for months. I notice almost no change there over time, and that is fascinating and brings me back. And yes, certainly frustrating.

Serendipper. For quite a long time, even though we disagreed through much of it, I found that you made sense, responded to the points I made - not perfectly, but I am sure I didn't either. Then recently you seemed to post mystical oxymorons as arguments, ignored the points I made and seemed in a rush, shifting the context, not trying to understand in the least, couching everything in this with me or against me fate of the world us vs. them thing, while as the same time saying you know it all doesn't matter, really. Like you want to couch me as a traitor while at the same time saying nothing matters. The mystic and the blame filled enraged political person subpersonalities comeing out at random. And neither subpersonality seeming to read my posts very well. Hence a new frustration.

KT has gone off on me as well. It is what it is.
I think the three of us have gone off on each other. To various degrees of implicit and explicit. And yes, it is what it is.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby phyllo » Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:04 pm

I didn't go that far, but truth isn't a popularity contest.

Remember this?

Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial despite her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them claiming vos Savant was wrong (Tierney 1991). Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still do not accept that switching is the best strategy (vos Savant 1991a). Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating the predicted result (Vazsonyi 1999). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

10,000 people vs one genius.
How will you recognize the truth when you see it?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11100
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby Jakob » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:23 pm

I wonder if anyone here had the realization that objectivity doesn't contradict subjectivity.

Experience is subjective, and that is objectively a fact.

The words really look fancy in contradistinction, Ill admit.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6785
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Wed Apr 03, 2019 9:32 pm

Jakob wrote:I wonder if anyone here had the realization that objectivity doesn't contradict subjectivity.

Experience is subjective, and that is objectively a fact.

The words really look fancy in contradistinction, Ill admit.


Yes, this argument has been raised by several people as we've been chasing it down through three current threads on the board.

The reason I don't make this exact argument is because it triggers the truth table:

It's objective that things are objective
It's subjective that things are objective
It's objective that things are subjective
It's subjective that things are subjective

Now, this in and of itself always makes the argument that objectivity exists.

However, if you use the ONLY operator it gets more complex.

There's no objectivist (except hypothetically: god), who claims that everything (ONLY) they believe is objective. Just some of it.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby iambiguous » Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:33 pm

Then the moral objectivists among them will insist that the manner in which they construe the whole truth here is on par with the manner in which all of us can determine/demonstrate what is true in the either/or world --- encompassed in the evolution of life on earth culminating [so far] in our own species biologically able to impregnate the female of the species.


Serendipper wrote:Well if the claim is an artifact of evolution, then it's subject to evolution and subjective. Objective claims will be supported by god or some authority.


This back and forth is always about where one draws the line between "in my head" and "out in the world". In a world sans God all claims by us are said to be subjective.

Thus there is no real distinction to be made between "Jane had an abortion" and "abortion is immortal". Unless God or some "authority" on objectivity confirms either one, it's all just something we believe in our head.

That way nothing can ever really be demonstrated to be true or false because we can never escape our own subjectivity.

Or one might argue that all of our claims are moot because we are just characters in a sim world. Or in a dream world. Or are just cyborgs created by the machines in a matrix.

Then, to the doubters, it is said, "prove that we're not!"

And unless and until we can fill in the blanks between our claims and a complete understanding of existence itself, we are able to actually demonstrate…nothing?

I think therefore I am? So you say.

Thus...

Objectivity is defined into existence "in your head". James Saints "definitional logic". And if you can convince others to share in those definitions culminating in the meaning or words placed in a particular order in posts like this, then objectivity is captured. If only in a world of words.


Serendipper wrote:Um, I guess.

If you posit some logic and say "here is a logic and here is why I think we should use it" then the logic is subject to the reason for using it; if the reasoning changes, then so will the applicability of the logic.
But if you assert some logic as fundamentally true without any associated reasoning for how you arrived at that conclusion, then the logic isn't subject to anything; it just is.

You see the difference?


Okay, but make this applicable to a particular context in which actual human behaviors can be used to illustrate your point. And if you presume a No God world absent any "authority" on objectivity how could anything at all be demonstrated?

As for this example...

Serendipper wrote:If someone says abortion is wrong, then you ask why, and they say "it just is" and "you know in your heart that it just is", then it's an objective claim because it doesn't depend of anything that could change the fact that abortion is wrong.

On the other hand if someone says abortion is wrong because, idk, it's a person with rights, then the assertion hinges on the personhood and having rights, and is subjective for that reason, even though "having rights" may itself be an objective assertion that's ultimately unjustifiable.


...it's over my head. In the first instance the subjects themselves seem to be making the claim to be the authorities on objectivity. It's derived from their heart of hearts. In the second instance, who but God or an absolute authority on "personhood" can demonstrate the inherent/natural rights of the unborn?

Meanwhile in the either/or world it doesn't take God to demonstrate that Jane did in fact have an abortion...and that Joe did in fact insist it is immoral. Unless of course Jane and Joe here do occupy a sim world/dream world reality...and are merely characters for creatures beyond our capacity to even grasp.

Or unless we live in an entirely determined universe where everything [including this exchange] is "beyond our control" as autononous creatures.

Thus....

...in a wholly determined universe even the human "subject" is but one more of nature's objects. But, if one presumes some level of autonomy, then [for me] what counts is connecting the dots between what any particular subjects believe is true and what they are able to demonstrate is true. Using, for example, the scientific method and the logical rules of language.


Serendipper wrote: So subjectivity says abortion is right or wrong depending on the context and objectivity says it's wrong regardless of any contexts.


Yes, but only to the extent that any particular subject is able to demonstrate that one can approach the morality of abortion as a doctor approaches human sexuality and pregnancy given her objective understanding of the biological parameters involved.


Serendipper wrote: There is no objective understanding. If it could be understood, it would be subjective.


Again, this is the part I fail to understand. You seem to make even that which we construe to be part of the "either/or world" -- the evolution of life on earth, human biology, human sexuality, human pregnancies, human abortions -- just more "subjective claims" because there is no God or Authority around to confirm them.

And, sure, what can I say. But what on earth does that really have to do with what we see all around us day in and day out? Sooner or later when it comes to "objective reality" we are all forced to draw the line somewhere. It just depends on how far out on the metaphysical limb you go.

Serendipper wrote: 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 have no idea what this has to do with the points I raise in regards to abortion out in the is/ought world. I'm not saying you are wrong, only that it is all entirely too abstract [to me] to have any real use value or exchange value in a context in which a particular abortion is actually being reacted to.


Serendipper wrote: I really have to press this issue because you're all over the site carrying on about a determined universe while all the evidence indicates that it's not so. The universe isn't determined or even determinable; it's probabilistic.


As though here you are God or an equivalent Authority on what is objectively true about the nature of existence itself. You assert what I construe to be a clearly subjective frame of mind here [as a mere mortal] as though merely asserting it makes it true objectively.

Serendipper wrote: Bring the concept of "bringing it down to earth" down to earth please ;)


Well, we need to name a particular context. Say, building Trump's wall on the border with Mexico. Then we need to hear all of the conflicting arguments regarding whether [objectively] we can discern the "right thing to do here".

With regard to actual flesh and blood human beings whose lives will either be uplifted or upended in building or not building it.


Serendipper wrote: There is no right thing to do, but there are right things to do in relation to certain goals.


But that just takes us to the part where the goals themselves are construed to be the right or the wrong thing to do.

Thus the argument in which the wall is deemed to be the right thing to pursue because the goal of keeping those south of the border out of America is deemed to be the right thing to do because the goal [for some] of making Americal great again revolves around making America whiter again.

Or maybe the goal of particular American businessmen is to bring those folks [black, brown or whatever] into the country because they are a great source of cheap labor.

Again, here there are actual facts that we seem able to establish as true for all of us objectively. Even if we don't have a God or an Authority around to confirm it.

Serendipper wrote: The wall is a waste of time, but it's not a waste of time from an objective standpoint because there is nothing that isn't a waste of time in that case.


Indeed, that, in my view, is "logically" where thinking like yours goes: since nothing can be demonstrated to be true objectively sans God or an Authority, everything can be dumped into your own particular understanding of subjectivity.

Unless I am simply misunderstanding your point. And -- objectively? -- that does happen a lot here.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 30189
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:49 pm

Ecmandu wrote:
Its objective that things are objective
Its subjective that things are objective
Its objective that things are subjective
Its subjective that things are subjective

When we say objective we mean either inter subjective consensus or proof / disproof or both of these
We do not and cannot mean it in any mind independent entirely omniscient sense like the mind of God
Because God is non falsifiable and so his existence cannot be demonstrated not even if he actually exists
Therefore when we say objectivity we can only mean relative objectivity rather than absolute objectivity
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:54 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Its objective that things are objective
Its subjective that things are objective
Its objective that things are subjective
Its subjective that things are subjective

When we say objective we mean either inter subjective consensus or proof / disproof or both of these
We do not and cannot mean it in any mind independent entirely omniscient sense like the mind of God
Because God is non falsifiable and so his existence cannot be demonstrated not even if he actually exists
Therefore when we say objectivity we can only mean relative objectivity rather than absolute objectivity


I don't buy that.

Existence is otherness.

If there is no otherness to and for god, then god cannot distinguish ours or gods own existence.

We can even make proof statements about god because of the objectivity we all have access to: existence is otherness ...

Now, because we can prove this, we can prove that otherness also applies to god, just like any being, thus, we can prove that god cannot be omnipresent (lack of otherness/ lack of existence)
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:10 pm

Proof statements about God may be logically true but they are not empirically true
And otherness may be existence but that doesnt mean that it must manifest as God
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Objectivity

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:27 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Proof statements about God may be logically true but they are not empirically true
And otherness may be existence but that doesnt mean that it must manifest as God


Nah.

In the Hebrew bible, gods name is "I am that I am"

I'm not by any stretch of the imagination going to tell you that if you and the tree are one, that you're full of it. I believe stuff like that.

HOWEVER!

To state that you are all existence, with no difference inside or out, that you are "I am that I am", I'm just going to call bullshit.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8146
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Objectivity

Postby surreptitious75 » Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:46 pm

In one way we are all one existence because we are all part of the same Universe
But we are equally also individual / independent parts of that very same Universe
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 798
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Artimas

cron