Subject/Object is a Frivilous Distinction

winverawin · October 26, 2007, 1:42am

I dont know but I think ‘zen and the art of motorcycle mechanics’ by robert pirsig deals with this issue.
has anyone read it?
I might not have comprehend what he meant but I think he was talking about how we experiance everything in the past. and the present was the duality. I dont know if this makes sense but I think it pertains to the thread. by all means please clearify if this is nonsense or meaningless.

gib · October 26, 2007, 2:56am

Explain further (I have not read ‘Zen and…’).

Joker · October 26, 2007, 3:04am

Smears:

Joker:

Smears:

Every object is a proposition.
Every observer encounters the same propositions. In that there is an object which is distinctly not subjective.
Every observer will have a particular view or vibe or interpretation about each propositional object. That view is necessarily not objective and is where the subjectivity lies.
Nothing is purely objective or purely subjective.
Everything possesses both properties.

So the subjective beliefs of a religious god can become “real” no matter how wild such a hysteria may be in its existence.

(Interesting. )

That’s like saying we should kill everybody who wears red because god deems it “right” since in your form of thinking it must be an objective “genuine” reality because alot of people hold faith in such hysterias that people wearing red are “unnecessary” by the very inclinations or actions of making their gospel “seem” real.

I can see why you would like such a system of thinking Smears, however I for one am not falling for such foolishness.

With that type of thinking I am sure people can “justify” anything and ironically I believe it is such thinking that spawned our present absurd existence undoubtedly.

Such a system puts man above the measure of reality where the stars are anything but the limit and it puts men in the position to justify any absurd action.

Now you’re getting it!!

I get what your saying and I think it is ridiculous. It is the exact form of thinking that I’m opposed to.

Why didn’t you answer my post in full length?

Mr_Reasonable · October 26, 2007, 3:16am

Joker:

Smears:

Every object is a proposition.
Every observer encounters the same propositions. In that there is an object which is distinctly not subjective.
Every observer will have a particular view or vibe or interpretation about each propositional object. That view is necessarily not objective and is where the subjectivity lies.
Nothing is purely objective or purely subjective.
Everything possesses both properties.

So the subjective beliefs of a religious god can become “real” no matter how wild such a hysteria may be in its existence.

I don’t see how a God in necessary, but even so, ask anyone who suffered through the inquisition, or anyone being killed in the name of Allah and they’ll tell you that’s right. I agree that in some, but not in all cases that this can be “wild hysteria”.

(Interesting. )

That’s like saying we should kill everybody who wears red because god deems it “right” since in your form of thinking it must be an objective “genuine” reality because alot of people hold faith in such hysterias that people wearing red are “unnecessary” by the very inclinations or actions of making their gospel “seem” real.

It’s like that in a way, but only in a far fetched way, I think that reason will factor out those sorts of possibilities in most cases. Anything can be used for good or evil, it’s just a matter of application. I do think that there’s an objective genuine reality, but I also see it as being content neutral. I would disagree with anyone who wanted to kill all people wearing red, and I’ll disagree with almost anything that’s done in the name of religion.

I can see why you would like such a system of thinking Smears, however I for one am not falling for such foolishness.

Explain to me exactly what you think my system of thinking entails and why it’s foolish.

With that type of thinking I am sure people can “justify” anything and ironically I believe it is such thinking that spawned our present absurd existence undoubtedly.

I think you’re right about anything being justifiable, but if you consider yourself a nihilist, you sort of have to give equal weight to everything or else you’ll end up with some sort of meaning. Doesn’t this seem like a good way to categorize properties such that you can deem most objects, observations, or phenomena meaningless or agnostic? You can use this man!!

Such a system puts man above the measure of reality where the stars are anything but the limit and it puts men in the position to justify any absurd action.

I’m not sure if that’s exclusive to this system, but I think it’s our duty as man to manifest our destiny by any means available. If this helps us conquer nature then I think that’s awesome.

SuperCulture · October 26, 2007, 3:18am

I think the words themselves are to blame… “Objective” and “subjective” means “highly correlated” and “uncertain and possibly low correlated”.

I don’t like the words, they seem like poorly conceived attempts at trying to categorize complex objects and their relationships.

Joker · October 26, 2007, 3:39am

Smears:

Joker:

Smears:

Every object is a proposition.
Every observer encounters the same propositions. In that there is an object which is distinctly not subjective.
Every observer will have a particular view or vibe or interpretation about each propositional object. That view is necessarily not objective and is where the subjectivity lies.
Nothing is purely objective or purely subjective.
Everything possesses both properties.

So the subjective beliefs of a religious god can become “real” no matter how wild such a hysteria may be in its existence.

I don’t see how a God in necessary, but even so, ask anyone who suffered through the inquisition, or anyone being killed in the name of Allah and they’ll tell you that’s right. I agree that in some, but not in all cases that this can be “wild hysteria”.

(Interesting. )

That’s like saying we should kill everybody who wears red because god deems it “right” since in your form of thinking it must be an objective “genuine” reality because alot of people hold faith in such hysterias that people wearing red are “unnecessary” by the very inclinations or actions of making their gospel “seem” real.

It’s like that in a way, but only in a far fetched way, I think that reason will factor out those sorts of possibilities in most cases. Anything can be used for good or evil, it’s just a matter of application. I do think that there’s an objective genuine reality, but I also see it as being content neutral. I would disagree with anyone who wanted to kill all people wearing red, and I’ll disagree with almost anything that’s done in the name of religion.

I can see why you would like such a system of thinking Smears, however I for one am not falling for such foolishness.

Explain to me exactly what you think my system of thinking entails and why it’s foolish.

With that type of thinking I am sure people can “justify” anything and ironically I believe it is such thinking that spawned our present absurd existence undoubtedly.

I think you’re right about anything being justifiable, but if you consider yourself a nihilist, you sort of have to give equal weight to everything or else you’ll end up with some sort of meaning. Doesn’t this seem like a good way to categorize properties such that you can deem most objects, observations, or phenomena meaningless or agnostic? You can use this man!!

Such a system puts man above the measure of reality where the stars are anything but the limit and it puts men in the position to justify any absurd action.

I’m not sure if that’s exclusive to this system, but I think it’s our duty as man to manifest our destiny by any means available. If this helps us conquer nature then I think that’s awesome.

I’m an atheist too so I am not saying a god is necessary either but instead I’m just using it as an example.

If it isn’t the religious fundamentalists who can legitimize any wild hysteria it will just be governmental politicians instead hence why I detest such a system of application not to mention it makes no sense to me.

What you need to understand is that when religious fundamentalists are not being far fetched other groups just as self destructive will like the government for instance.

Essentially this system of yours could make destroying the globe into a “objective reality” with a bunch of people believing such a stance to be a accurate option through blind faith.

This is why “Subjective” and “Objective” distinctions remain.

See above.

I can see the benefits but you forget that I am a naturalist too.

I believe everything revolves around nature including man.

What is to say people can’t create things harmful to our enviroment or things that may be poisonous to man’s natural constitution just by some imaginary factitious metaphysical claim?

Man will never conquer or subdue nature. It is nature that has man subdued now and it shall always remain so.

Mr_Reasonable · October 26, 2007, 4:05am

Joker:

Smears:

Joker:

Smears:

Every object is a proposition.
Every observer encounters the same propositions. In that there is an object which is distinctly not subjective.
Every observer will have a particular view or vibe or interpretation about each propositional object. That view is necessarily not objective and is where the subjectivity lies.
Nothing is purely objective or purely subjective.
Everything possesses both properties.

So the subjective beliefs of a religious god can become “real” no matter how wild such a hysteria may be in its existence.

I don’t see how a God in necessary, but even so, ask anyone who suffered through the inquisition, or anyone being killed in the name of Allah and they’ll tell you that’s right. I agree that in some, but not in all cases that this can be “wild hysteria”.

(Interesting. )

That’s like saying we should kill everybody who wears red because god deems it “right” since in your form of thinking it must be an objective “genuine” reality because alot of people hold faith in such hysterias that people wearing red are “unnecessary” by the very inclinations or actions of making their gospel “seem” real.

It’s like that in a way, but only in a far fetched way, I think that reason will factor out those sorts of possibilities in most cases. Anything can be used for good or evil, it’s just a matter of application. I do think that there’s an objective genuine reality, but I also see it as being content neutral. I would disagree with anyone who wanted to kill all people wearing red, and I’ll disagree with almost anything that’s done in the name of religion.

I can see why you would like such a system of thinking Smears, however I for one am not falling for such foolishness.

Explain to me exactly what you think my system of thinking entails and why it’s foolish.

With that type of thinking I am sure people can “justify” anything and ironically I believe it is such thinking that spawned our present absurd existence undoubtedly.

I think you’re right about anything being justifiable, but if you consider yourself a nihilist, you sort of have to give equal weight to everything or else you’ll end up with some sort of meaning. Doesn’t this seem like a good way to categorize properties such that you can deem most objects, observations, or phenomena meaningless or agnostic? You can use this man!!

Such a system puts man above the measure of reality where the stars are anything but the limit and it puts men in the position to justify any absurd action.

I’m not sure if that’s exclusive to this system, but I think it’s our duty as man to manifest our destiny by any means available. If this helps us conquer nature then I think that’s awesome.

I don’t see how a God in necessary, but even so, ask anyone who suffered through the inquisition, or anyone being killed in the name of Allah and they’ll tell you that’s right. I agree that in some, but not in all cases that this can be “wild hysteria”.

I’m an atheist too so I am not saying a god is necessary either but instead I’m just using it as an example.

If it isn’t the religious fundamentalists who can legitimize any wild hysteria it will just be governmental politicians instead hence why I detest such a system of application not to mention it makes no sense to me.

I think that everyone uses this system to legitimize everything. Whether or not they realize or admit it, or let it show on the surface is another story.

It’s like that in a way, but only in a far fetched way, I think that reason will factor out those sorts of possibilities in most cases. Anything can be used for good or evil, it’s just a matter of application. I do think that there’s an objective genuine reality, but I also see it as being content neutral. I would disagree with anyone who wanted to kill all people wearing red, and I’ll disagree with almost anything that’s done in the name of religion.

What you need to understand is that when religious fundamentalists are not being far fetched other groups just as self destructive will like the government for instance.

When I say far fetched I mean going so far as to make the arbitrary nature of law seem apparent. This happens all the time with religious fundamentalists and politicians, but they have to keep it within a certain framework of reason. If the govt wanted a revolution, they might start killing people w/ red shirts. They know better than to go that far.

Essentially this system of yours could make destroying the globe into a “objective reality” with a bunch of people believing such a stance to be a accurate option through blind faith.

I think that this system governs everything. The globe is as it is no matter how it is. The fact that subject and object are hopelessly intertwined is just a part of that.

This is why “Subjective” and “Objective” distinctions remain.

I don’t agree. Please explain to me,(preferably in syllogistic form) how this is so.

Explain to me exactly what you think my system of thinking entails and why it’s foolish.

See above.

I think you’re right about anything being justifiable, but if you consider yourself a nihilist, you sort of have to give equal weight to everything or else you’ll end up with some sort of meaning. Doesn’t this seem like a good way to categorize properties such that you can deem most objects, observations, or phenomena meaningless or agnostic? You can use this man!!

I can see the benefits but you forget that I am a naturalist too.

I believe everything revolves around nature including man.

Everything including synthetic things like metaphysical foundations of reasoning?

What is to say people can’t create things harmful to our enviroment or things that may be poisonous to man’s natural constitution just by some imaginary factitious metaphysical claim?

They can. That’s why I’m saying that this distinction is false. But by that same reasoning, what’s to say that people can’t save the world? Why the pessimism?

I’m not sure if that’s exclusive to this system, but I think it’s our duty as man to manifest our destiny by any means available. If this helps us conquer nature then I think that’s awesome.

Man will never conquer or subdue nature. It is nature that has man subdued now and it shall always remain so.

I agree that we’ll never subdue nature, but striving to understand it and allign ourselves with it in the best possible way is the whole point of our existence right? Do you think that there’s a subject/object distinction in the world of animalistic instincts?

realunoriginal · October 26, 2007, 4:12am

’

Mr_Reasonable · October 26, 2007, 4:20am

I like the way you define these here. I am aware that they are a useful part of language, but like you said, they’re matters of probablilty and as far as that’s concerned it becomes quite difficult to properly categorize individual objects as one or the other.

Mr_Reasonable · October 26, 2007, 4:23am

Scientific results are verified mathematically and through peer review. Thus scientific verification is a combination of what would be called subjective agreement in peer review, and objective mathematical consistency. Everything is both.

SuperCulture · October 26, 2007, 4:50am

Smears:

SuperCulture:

Smears:

I think that looking at things as if they must be subjective or objective is stupid. Nothing is neither, everything is both. Nothing is purely subjective and nothing is purely objective. Everything is both.

Debate.

I think the words themselves are to blame… “Objective” and “subjective” means “highly correlated” and “uncertain and possibly low correlated”.

I don’t like the words, they seem like poorly conceived attempts at trying to categorize complex objects and their relationships.

I like the way you define these here. I am aware that they are a useful part of language, but like you said, they’re matters of probablilty and as far as that’s concerned it becomes quite difficult to properly categorize individual objects as one or the other.

Whether we admit it or not, our knowledge works on the “metaphorical congruence of truth” model, we find coarse metaphorical frameworks and refine and revise them as our minds or education gets better but our minds are to small and limited to see the depth and complexity all at once, ever been between two mirrors and notice how they go on potentially forever (we’ll forget the limits of physics/photons for this example), that is what knowledge is like.

I think of it like SET THEORY and SETS dividling like “cell divisions” and an absolute probability set which I call the “boolean field” which is the “dna” of the sets. All knowledge is composed of bits that are either there or not there, and the “field” is the “rough area” between the actual values, imagine a circle around a square, and the square itself is the ‘truth’ or ‘boolean’ value we are looking for, either the square IS there and it has a perfectly defined shape (that is, data shape, since a square is ARBITRARILY DEFINED, therefore it is a DATA SHAPE). Or it is not there

and the circles edge is the boundary of the area, and anyhere in between the boundary of the squares edges and the circles, is the layers of COARSE CONGRUENCE, the closer we get to the squares edge in terms of conceptualizing what it is (the square), the more accurate our representation of what is “real” is. And this process refines itself over and over again as if we existed in a hall of mirrors, since once we find the congruence of one object, we find other smaller objects at the edge ot the square and so on, like one big complicated fractal pattern, which we are much too dim to comprehend fully, only tiny pieces of it.

realunoriginal · October 26, 2007, 5:30am

’

Mr_Reasonable · October 26, 2007, 5:48am

The field represents quantum uncertainty. Is this a fair analogy? Some things are measurable, some are not. Theories about what exists beyond what’s measurable are speculative and have a lesser standard of evidence than those that do not. Am i following you here?[/b]

gib · October 26, 2007, 5:36pm

SuperCulture:

Smears:

SuperCulture:

Smears:

I think that looking at things as if they must be subjective or objective is stupid. Nothing is neither, everything is both. Nothing is purely subjective and nothing is purely objective. Everything is both.

Debate.

I think the words themselves are to blame… “Objective” and “subjective” means “highly correlated” and “uncertain and possibly low correlated”.

I don’t like the words, they seem like poorly conceived attempts at trying to categorize complex objects and their relationships.

I like the way you define these here. I am aware that they are a useful part of language, but like you said, they’re matters of probablilty and as far as that’s concerned it becomes quite difficult to properly categorize individual objects as one or the other.

Whether we admit it or not, our knowledge works on the “metaphorical congruence of truth” model, we find coarse metaphorical frameworks and refine and revise them as our minds or education gets better but our minds are to small and limited to see the depth and complexity all at once, ever been between two mirrors and notice how they go on potentially forever (we’ll forget the limits of physics/photons for this example), that is what knowledge is like.

I think of it like SET THEORY and SETS dividling like “cell divisions” and an absolute probability set which I call the “boolean field” which is the “dna” of the sets. All knowledge is composed of bits that are either there or not there, and the “field” is the “rough area” between the actual values, imagine a circle around a square, and the square itself is the ‘truth’ or ‘boolean’ value we are looking for, either the square IS there and it has a perfectly defined shape (that is, data shape, since a square is ARBITRARILY DEFINED, therefore it is a DATA SHAPE). Or it is not there

and the circles edge is the boundary of the area, and anyhere in between the boundary of the squares edges and the circles, is the layers of COARSE CONGRUENCE, the closer we get to the squares edge in terms of conceptualizing what it is (the square), the more accurate our representation of what is “real” is. And this process refines itself over and over again as if we existed in a hall of mirrors, since once we find the congruence of one object, we find other smaller objects at the edge ot the square and so on, like one big complicated fractal pattern, which we are much too dim to comprehend fully, only tiny pieces of it.

That’s an interesting analogy, SC, but it’s also somewhat obscure. Mind if I probe it a bit?

In particular, I’m wondering what you mean by:

Maybe what follows from this in your post is the clarification I’m looking for, but I think I’m hung up on a few definitions. In particular, how do you define an “absolute probability set” and the “dna” that this set is for the smaller sets? How would you put this in ordinary psychological terms like “thoughts”, “knowledge”, “beliefs”, etc.?