The end of the subjectivity debate

Philosophy is the love of wisdom… “wisdom” that you cannot live by is no wisdom at all, but mere navel gazing, self-congratulatory sophistry.

look how you treat me for not standing in awe of the revelations you bring… you assume I must be uneducated or not sophisticated enough to comprehend it.
Not much doubt in you, is there?

And yet you have dodged my question repeatedly… not because you’re afraid to answer it… no you think I’m asking because I’m too stupid to understand, much less ask the right questions.

But please humor this idiot and answer my god damn question.

Why should we doubt there is a table?
Why should we doubt, anything at all?

Pretend for a moment this is a serious question, give it some thought and present me with the fundamentals, not this philosophy for toddlers crap. pretty please, with sugar on top

Ok, to address the above recent posts:

I’ve already explained this. Perceptual acuity.

How there is always a sweet spot for objects.

If you take a microscope to a tree, it no longer looks like a tree. If you standback 40 miles, again, it no longer looks like a tree.

Now, let’s talk about the Higgs boson. It’s called the god particle because it’s the particle that makes mass. But even the Higgs can be split, and even that can be split.

We have infinite regress no matter where we look. Infinite regress that doesn’t look anything like what it was split from.

This is important, every object we see is an infinity, except, we never see the entire object, which is why we can process it in the first place, as no mind can count an infinity.

Neither can existence, when existence tries to be itself, infinite, it can’t count it, but this process causes motion instead of stasis.

To say that a multiverse is omnipresent is false, it’s an infinite number of universes and or realities, and infinity cannot count itself. That why we see something, instead of the nothing of infinity that doesn’t allow processing of the entire infinity if counted at once.

Just like there is a sweet spot for objects, there is a sweet spot for all existents and even existence itself, the infinity being finite as motion when it’s being itself.

Existence is not a physical thing but a state of being so it cannot be measured like something with dimensions can be
The multiverse is all that exists as a physical thing but can be treated as infinite because it also cannot be measured
We do not know what the size of our universe is compared to the multiverse as light cannot travel between universes
We know what the size of the observable universe is but nothing else

You cannot do science or empirical anything without rationalism.

But that’s not enough. You have to intuit that it is memory, that there is regularity, that there are rules, that you can trust memory, that things last in time. There is a mass of axioms and deduced truths that one must work with to work with empiricism. There is not pure empiricism.

But empiricists are not free of a-priori, as mentioned above. And Rationalists will also check empirically, otherwise all you have is thoughts.

You wake up in bed as an empiricist…

you have to have a bunch of assumptions (apriori stuff).

There is no pure empiricism or empiricist. They have to consider certian things knowledge that they did not arrive at empirically.

I can build a machine that will function just by iterative trial and error.
I don’t have to “program” it to presuppose anything for the process of trial and error to produce the most useful suppositions.
All we need… at bottom, is motivation and experience.

Which means we don’t have to intuit anything, or hold to any axioms save one… just one.
And so it’s very convenient that the only axiom we need is the one thing we can be absolutely certain of “there exists qualitative experience” full stop.

From that well we can draw everything else.

A state of being is always a physical thing. You know how in the movies ghostbusters, they have devices that trap the ghosts … im not even half kidding here, anything that manifests in some way, no matter how seemingly far removed from us, has a body, a limit that can be discerned.

Infinite things cannot be held, once there’s an infinite, it fractures, this fracturing is the otherness we see all around.

Light can’t travel between multiverse universes? This is news to me.

We dont know the size of the observable universe in standard science, we only know what we can telescope of light, better the telescope, larger the universe. All we’re doing is to try to capture light.

You missed my reply to your questions, i.e.;

Why should we doubt there is a table?
Why should we doubt, anything at all?

I’ll repeat the points I have posted earlier which you missed.
viewtopic.php?p=2724657#p2724657

Why should we doubt there is a table?

and in addition, to why we need to doubt there is a table

I also stated we have to doubt the table because there is no permanent table we can hinge on:

I have explained in earlier post we need to understand the many perspectives to reality as it is, thus the need to doubt the certainty of only one perspective;

Suggest you read my post again.
I believe you were too occupied with too many posts thus missed my points. You should not complain based on your own omission.

Well, that’s not necessarily knowledge, that behavior. But more important, no you can’t. You still have to trust that your senses are registering correctly external reality to compare error with success, and your memories of what has gone before. There are still assumptions all over that.

And assumptions about the repeatability of experience, your memory of it, perception, your ability to evaluate, and more.

And we can remember it with some accuracy, and we can perceive it with some accuracy -plus attendant assumptions about agency and ability to evaluate.

[/quote]
No. We would have no reason to get out of bed, or start anything without a mass of assumptions.

WE can build a machine that puts together things and over millions of years might make accidental useful things. But 1) that is not something with knowledge and 2) that’s not what we do.

And you need intuition for all your movements, for all your choices of, for example, the angles at which you choose to look at what you made when evaluating it. You need intuition to have the ‘I have evaulated it enough and correctly’ quale, when you decide it works, or that you can move on to working on part B. And more.

There are no, none, purely empirical ways to accomplish anything. This is a myth. One must include non-rational cognitive processes. Not irrational ones, but non-rational ones. One must assume a lot of things.

??
You mean falsifiable?

Actually the critical criteria in the following order;
[list]1. A sound Framework and System [scientific method, peer pressure] with high confidence levels.
2. intersubjective consensus among peers
3. repeatable testing and confirmation of results
4. Confidence of the majority
5. falsifiability
6. humility of no 100% certainty
7. Others
[/list:u]

Existence is not exactly a state of being.

Exist [essence of existence] is merely a copula between a subject and its predicate.
A thing [subject] exists as a state of being as represented by its predicate.
The term ‘exist’ [and existence] is not the critical element here.

What is critical is the thing and its state of being.
E.g. one cannot state ‘an apple exists [period].’
An apple [subject/object] exists as a fruit within an environment [state of being].
Therefore if you want to demonstrate the existence of the apple, then one must produce evidence and justification of its predicate, i.e. its qualities, properties, concepts, evidences etc.

Ecmandu,

‘Existence’ [essence exists] is a copped out word for what is reality.

It is there an absolute sweet spot for all living things [subjects]?
There is no such absolute sweet spot.

What is a sweet spot is subjected [thus subjective] to;

  1. the individual, and the average, the majority of a living species.

So what is a sweet spot is possibly objective to a majority or the average but it is ultimately subjects dependent, thus subjectivity.

Yes. There is an average, and we all fall within that average.

It’s like a cup of coffee.

People often tell me that there is no such thing as perfection… however, when I order coffee, I always ask them to fill it 3/4ths full. I’ve never had that same pour twice, but, it’s been perfect every time. The function is don’t fill it so that I burn my hands by walking with it, and don’t rip me off. It’s never been exactly 3/4ths full, but it’s still perfect every time.

It’s in this way, that people are objectively perfect as an average in their slice of the perceptual acuity pie.

C’mon dude, you were so close.
You got it right the first time… there is in fact no “knowledge” claimed in that, it’s just a process… or behavior as you put it.
And I don’t have to “trust” my senses or memory or even assume that there IS an external reality in order to behave that way.

You keep confusing the suppositions we make every day with presuppositions… those two concepts are very different.
What I’m arguing is that we can do without any a-priori assumptions or presuppositions.
I don’t have to PRE-suppose I can trust my memory… I can just suppose it normally then test it. As a consequence I now suppose my memory is mostly accurate but also quite capable of being wrong, my senses can mostly be trusted, except when I’m less than sober, then they get a bit dicey… if my senses or memory being trustworthy were PRE-suppositions, I’d be incapable of coming to the conclusion that they sometimes cannot be trusted.

I’m not saying we can do without suppositions, which is what you seem to think… I’m saying we can do without PREsuppositions, because we have a process by which we can generate and improve our suppositions.
And all it takes for that process to work is qualitative experience…

We don’t do without them. And I do not put citation marks around my assumptions all the time. Once in a while when waxing philosophical I, unlike most people, may question them. But that is clearly challenging axioms.

I did not miss your reply…
You seem to have lost the plot on our conversation… allow me to demonstrate:

I’m curious… can you see what went wrong here?

Agreed…

I’m not arguing against YOU… I don’t think I even disagree with you.
I’m arguing against epistemic rationalism, I’m pointing out that we check our suppositions against empirical evidence and if there is conflict, the empirical evidence wins… that’s all it means to be an empiricists.

Yes, wins the battle, but not necessarily the war. Empiricism doesn’t obliterate basic assumptions, they merely put them on hold.
The most elemental support for this lays in the purpose of retaining of conflict, for delayed resolution, while waiting for the situation to change.

We dont know if multiverse theory is true but if light could travel between universes that would be evidence it was

The observable universe is I4 billion years in time and 93 billion light years across space and is expanding I0 to the - 8 centimetres per second

Perhaps our optics have a way to go, then.

Or even a better description, with God dead or dying , follows even optics, then all through a dead philosophy, only a set of facts remain on a computer, then when that becomes beyond understanding, man himself disappears.

And then negative ontology begins all over again, with a time consuming struggle through conflict, or the other way around.

There are a lot of logical fallacies with fancy old names both formal and informal… evidently because we are not entirely rational beings.
The war is not with reason… we’re all at war with our own nature, trying desperately to work around the limitations of the tools we were given, to grow smarter, stronger and wiser so we can live better lives.