It’s easy to argue a compatiblist view on both objectivity and subjectivity, and freewill and determinism.
The extremes always solve as zero.
As soon as serendipper understands that through more discourse, we’ll have generated a good thread.
I’ll go there.
A being cannot be omnipresent, as omnipresence solves as something without an outside. Without the concept of an outside I couldn’t point to the sunset of the left of me to someone walking next to me, because I’d have no concept that right was outside of left. Omnistates don’t exist. The cosmos is, by definition, fractured. Meaning: every existent has an outside of.
See; not too hard or scary.
You’re relegating what is meant by experience to be that of human experience only, but what is human experience other than a bunch of chemicals bubbling around? In my philosophy, the electron experiences the nucleus and the atom experiences other atoms as well as light and gravity. We experience a more complicated pattern of it, but matter observes other matter in the most simplistic fashion, but it’s still observation.
Objective reality:
The totality of everything that exists = T. Now, what does T exist in relation to? Where is T? What does T look like? How long has T been there? Are time and space applicable concepts outside of T? No. There is no way to speak of or to conceptualize any possible meaning to objective existence. If James’ axiom is true, then T doesn’t exist since there is nothing that is not T in order for T to affect. But yet here we are.
Now we’re entering into the realm of agnosticism: the nonconceptual knowledge; the apophatic knowledge, which is as opposed to a painter applying paint to display an idea, instead a sculpture removes stone to reveal an idea, likewise we strip away concepts to reveal what cannot be conceptualized. Neti Neti, not this not this.
Just to stay in practice:
There was a young man who said "God,
I find it exceedingly odd
that a tree as a tree would continue to be
when there’s no one around in the quad.
Reply:
Young man, your astonishment’s odd;
I’m always around in the quad,
that’s why a tree as a tree continues to be
since observed by yours faithfully, God.
It just means that what you call a tree is subject to what you define as a tree; there is no objective tree. Is a blueberry bush a tree? Every time I call one a tree everyone jumps at the chance to correct me.
Yep, when I dig up a tree, I have to decide what is tree and what is not, then shovel out the tree and leave the rest. My decision will be unique compared to everyone else.
Completely removing the roots is very expensive for massive trees, usually people just opt for them to be cut as a stump and then rot out over several decades.
This doesn’t confuse anyone even though there are an infinite number of ways to cut the tree down and backhoe the roots. This infinity doesn’t confuse anyone who is instructed to either take the tree down to the trunk or to remove the roots entirely.
Nobody gets confused like you and digs a hole from Antarctica to Japan just to remove a tree.
Or even moreso: “well… I can’t do the job because that means I have to dig up all of existence! Sorry, I can’t flush the toilet or wash a dish or wipe my own ass either (as you start rubbing toilet paper on a mountain!), because that means I have to do it for all of existence”
You’re talking nonsense here, literally, you are talking psychotically… you have psychosis. I know that you don’t really believe anything that you’re saying because you are reading posts and forming intelligible replies. So, you’re not actually psychotic, just pretending to be psychotic, which technically is trolling… but even this, were still giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you’re just a bit confused, as we all get from time to time, and that you’ll admit your momentary confusion and snap out of it.
If I got killed in that scenario how can “I know” what had happened.
If the whole human species is exterminated instantly, there is more subjects and subjectivity to interacts to sustain any objectivity.
If I get injured the whole event is intersubjectively caused by objects on a subject, i.e. intersubjective objectivity.
As long as the person is living, the basis is intersubjectivity of objectivity.
Objectivitity is built and emerged along with evolution within subjects on the holistic collective scale not on an individual basis.
On the contrary you are the one who is psychotic and delusional [not in a serious psychiatric manner] when you insist there is absolute objectivity. Note I wrote this earlier;
If you are not religious but still insist there is absolute objectivity, you are still caught in an illusion thus delusional [not in a serious psychiatric manner] as compelled by an existential crisis or zombie parasites.
Note Science at best merely ASSUMEs there is absolute objectivity in order for its model to work but there is no way Science will ever claim with certainty absolute objectivity exists.
Absolute objectivity = objects exist regardless whether human subjects exist or not.
According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures via intersubjective consensus through its very specific, qualified and conditional Scientific Framework and Model.
Note there is a long history within philosophy to support my points, btw it is not Berkeley’s Subjective Idealism with Theism.
One of my basis is Kant’s Empirical Realism and Transcendental Idealism.
Objective reality existed before life evolved and there were no minds to investigate it [ which is most of the Universes existence ]
And when we finally become extinct [ assuming no intelligent life elsewhere ] this state of objective reality will once again return
Science makes no assumptions at all about the nature of reality because that is ontology which it doesnt do
Science is only interested in one thing : that is the study of observable phenomena by the scientific method
What this phenomena is from a philosophical perspective is beyond its remit and is therefore not its concern
The one that is still experiencing is the only one who was.
God, I love when parts of me come up with what they think of as conundrums.
Oh, dream figure, there was no problem
It doesn’t matter what you decide… you’re not going to grow a new tree by planting a leaf, be sustained by eating the roots of an apple tree or kept warm by your dirt fueled fire.
You’re going to dig up what you need and ignore what you don’t, same as anyone else… the rest is semantics
Science does make assumptions.
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
Without assumptions, it would be impossible to “do science”.
I would add some more:
memory is to some extent effective
There is a reality external to our perceptions of it - though some parts of science have been questioning it. IOW the whole model of perception subject → perceives → objects has been a ruling assumption in science. That is a kind of realism.
Science also moves forward using models, all the time. Generally models are not the direct results of research, but ways of describing, often metaphorically, how a lot of empirically arrived at facts hang together. These models are assumptions, and their limitations get shown when there are paradigm shifts. They hvae been effective in guiding research. IOW they are often effective assumptions.
You wouldn’t know. But if you are dead and you didn’t “see” the brick that killed you then that must mean the brick exists even when the subject knows nothing about it. It (the object) exists independently of the subject’s thoughts.
What are these phrases “intersubjective objectivity” and “intersubjectivity of objectivity”?? How are they different from plain inter-subjectivity or objectivity?
That second sentence contains ontology or I think it would be better put: it contains metaphysics. And using the term ‘scientific method’ as part of what science is interested in creates a bit of a tautology. The scientific method also contains assumptions. Not saying that’s a bad thing, just that it is.
Umm… prismatic, I’m not religious because I can prove god doesn’t exist and I can prove platonic forms have to exist (eternal forms) thus no regress.
Hate to break it to you: all religious people are wrong
Now, I’ll grant you this: as you think, so shall you become, assuming it doesn’t violate the law of contradiction.
attempt at a refutation of the ecmandu/platonic forms:
there are two tables in this room. each table is different in shape, structure, and color… but they’re both still tables. why? is it because each table is a particular instance of a universal form ‘table’ that i have an idea of, and which exists in another realm? let’s say ‘yes’. now, i want to go to this eternal realm of platonic forms and see the Table that all instances of tables in this realm are a imperfect copy of. what is the table going to be like? will it look more like the table over there, or the other table? perhaps it doesn’t look like either tables. well, it has to look like some table, somewhere, here in this world… or else how would i identify it as a table rather than, say, an onion?
now if it looks like some table here in this realm (identical in shape, structure and color), wouldn’t i be able to say that if i found the table it was identical to, i would have found the perfect platonic form Table, here in this realm? well i should be able to say that, but according to the theory of forms, i could not.
what is happening here is a paradoxical inversion of the forms; i cannot have the idea of Table unless the perfect table which the idea is of, resembles some table in this realm. it would have to, or else i wouldn’t be able to know it was a table. and yet if it does resemble a table in this realm, it follows that at least one table in this realm is the universal form Table… which is a table that is not supposed to be in this realm.
any platonic ideal form of a universal must, by virtue of it being possible to identify it as such, be identical to some abstract, particular instance of it.
but it gets even more problematic. what defines a table as a table? what it is, or how it’s used? if i stack papers on a chair, would the chair be providing the same function as a table? it seems so. now if i were to object and say ‘no, you can use the chair like a table, but that doesn’t make a chair a table’, one might ask me ‘well then which of these tables is the real table? that one over there has only three legs, while this one over here has two shelves and five legs. if you say they are both tables, and yet they are not the same, the only thing making them identical would be how they are used… in which case the chair would then qualify as a table because it is used the same way.’
ah. we are mistaking the substantive for the ‘word’ table… we are imagining that there is a ‘thing’ that is a table rather than simply defining a table as something used in this way.
suppose i poured orange juice into a shoe and began drinking it (i washed the shoe first, so relax). is the shoe now a cup? if you say no, i follow with the same objection; show me the real cup, then. is it that one over there that is blue with a handle… or the yellow one without a handle? if you say they are both cups, you’re admitting that what a cup is does not determine whether or not it’s a cup, since these cups are different. it must be how these objects are used that defines them as ‘cups’.
while i’m in the platonic realm standing beside the perfect Table, at which plato is seated and scribbling something profound on some wrinkled parchment, i show him a polaroid of a table in my realm that looks exactly like the Table he’s seated at, and say ‘explain that, buddy’.
he replies ‘oh… that’s not the same table, it just looks like this Table.’
i then say ‘so what makes this table you’re seated at the Table? just the fact that it’s here in this realm, rather than the other realm?’
he pauses and looks at me suspiciously… this due to the post traumatic stress disorder he’s developed after arguing with all the sophists. then he says ‘yes, what makes this Table the universal form of all tables is the fact that it’s here rather than there.’
‘so then the Forms have nothing to do with what they are, but rather where they are?’
(at this point he starts to panic, and wishes he could bring socrates in to save him.)
‘i know what you’re thinking, Plato, and don’t bother. i eat philosophers for breakfast so socrates can’t save you. now then, in your original theory you stated that particulars were imperfect copies of universals which exist here in this realm… now you’re saying that the form of the universals is not what distinguishes them from the particulars… but rather the location of the forms, instead.’
plato shifts in his chair uneasily and starts in again…
‘but this Table is the perfect table, and whatever table happens to resemble it does not on that account become equal to it.’
‘look dude, i just showed you a picture of a table in my living room that LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE; made of the same wood, having the same weight, structure, shape, density, color. now, what on earth… er, i mean, what in the platonic realm could you possibly mean by ‘equal’ if not the physical characteristics of the thing in question?’
suddenly ecmandusattva materializes out of thin air wearing a blue coat at which plato stares in astonishment. he says ‘damn, that’s a pretty solid coat man. is it water proof gortex or just water resistant?’
‘it’s water proof, yeah… and it matches my blue eyes… did you notice? here’s the link to the post a picture thread at ILP. you can bookmark it if you want.’
plato opens his platonic chrome browser… the perfect Browser that is free of all the bugs the particular chrome browsers in this realm suffer from, and goes to ILP.’
ecmandusattva begins…
‘the solution to the problem promethean75 poses is the hyperdimensional mirrors.’
plato starts and nearly drops his laptop.
‘how do you have knowledge of the hyperdimensional mirrors?!’
‘i’m 47 gazillion years old and have been travelling universes forever. it’s the kind of thing you eventually discover when you’re like me.’
now i cut in…
‘gentlemen, i don’t see how hyperdimensional mirrors solve the simple problem i’ve presented to mr. plato concerning is theory of Forms. bring in as many mirrors as you want… still doesn’t change anything about my argument. and listen, plato, you still haven’t answered to your homeboy aristotle’s argument against your theory, either. why? you scared, nigga?’
plato furrows his brow and inquires.
‘what is a ‘nigga’?’
‘a ‘nigga’ is a particular imperfect copy of the universal Nigga that exists here in your realm. hey, you said it, not me.’
‘well i’ve never seen a Nigga so i can’t say such a Form exists.’
ecmandusattva cuts in.
‘the platonic Nigga can be found using the hyperdimensional mirrors.’
‘no man… you’d end up at the same problem with the Nigga. if i found a nigga in my realm that was identical to the platonic Nigga in this realm, the distinction between particular niggas and universal Niggas would vanish. the only way around this dilemma is to redefine the nigga to mean how the nigga is used, not what the nigga is. and if that’s the case, i can call a white boy a nigga if i dress him in an oversized adidas jump suit, give him an illegitimate job selling drugs, and teach him to say ‘ax’ instead of ‘ask’. i think i’ve sufficiently made my point, gentlemen. the platonic theory of Forms is nonsense, as the existence of vanilla ice clearly demonstrates.’
ecmandusattva makes a last ditch effort to regain the upper hand.
‘no, you misunderstand. we’re all collectively hallucinating niggas against our consent.’
‘well it ain’t against my consent, dude. i actually like vanilla ice. check this out; alright stop, collaborate and listen… ice is back with a brand new invention… something… grabs ahold of me tightly, flow like a harpoon daily and nightly…’
plato suddenly jumps out of his chair and drops the next verse.
‘will it ever stop, yo, i don’t know… turn off the lights, and i’ll glow…’
spit that shit, Plato!
plato, now doing the mc hammer across the floor in his toga, continues.
‘to the extreme i rock a mic like a vandal… light up a stage and wax a chump like a candle…’
by now ecmandusattva, appalled at the developing situation, has lost his enthusiasm. he puts his earphones back in, switches on his CD player which holds a depressing air supply greatest hits CD, dematerializes, and travels back to ILP without escalating his approach (so to avoid one or more of the five heartbreaks).
after promethean75 and plato have finished the song, they sit back down at the platonic Table laughing, and pick up the former conversation.
‘i think i understand what you mean, promethean75. i hadn’t thought about my theory so critically, before. you’re right; there can’t be a clear distinction between particulars and universals like i thought.’
'right. it’s only when you confuse yourself with metaphysical thinking that you arrive at problems of identity. what i’ve shown is that ‘things’ in the world are defined by how they are used, not what they are. the very idea of the universal either admits of having to be identical to a particular, or to being defined by its function rather than its identity. in either case, you find that there are no universals.
with that, promethean75 takes off his shoes, pours wine into each one, and offers to make a toast to their new found philosophical wisdom.
Who is talking about massive trees? Paradigm much?
I have oodles of trees in pots that I dug up. I probably have 50-60 in styrofoam cups. Funny how “tree” to you = roots extending to japan but “tree” to me = a sprout in a cup. See? You’re making my argument for me.
Yes I see.
Impressive!
Oh. Well perhaps those in charge of decorum will take note.
We can remain hopeful 