Is Thought Objective?

[Xander]

I have a theory, it worked on my cat. I'm going to stick a bell on your brain Mr Wildcat. That way I can tell where you're thinking.

 

[wildcat]

Mirrors don't do a thing except reflect. Using mirrors is a poor analogy anyway because the image is turned upside down by the eye looking at the mirror.

Thought is objective... it may not produce objective results but that's in a different arena is it not? Would it not be true to say that it would be objective in the context of the internal world regardless of if it is in the external world. Ergo concept would be objective at least initially.

Oh and those numbers... a component is one a dichotomy is one... so the component which must by nature consist of elements of both sides of the dichotomy also equals one? If only such were believable.

The image does not turn. This is what you said.
Correct.

The eye turns the image?
It looks like it.

The eye does not turn anything.
Look is not objective.

 

[wildcat]

I have a theory, it worked on my cat. I'm going to stick a bell on your brain Mr Wildcat. That way I can tell where you're thinking.

How do you find home if you are lost?
Direction is subjective.

Science is about meaning.
A road is a way home.

Object does not divide.
Therefore it never turns.

Mathematics is not about what is out there.
It is about what is in here.

 

[Llewellyn]

Definantly these are some coherent definitions from linguists. The one that catches my eye though, objectivity=shared subjectivity, it sounds an adequate definition in most situations, but it can prove questionable. For example Galileo, believed the earth was round, if we take this definition of objectivity, the Earth was flat. Galileo was being subjective.

To take CaptainChick's quote. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens. (Great quote btw )

Shared subjectivity couldn’t change the fact the Earth is round, so if objectivity is the closest thing to truth, this perspective is contradicted by factual scientific observation. So who is really objective here? Its an interesting question, if we take the position that objectivity is shared subjectivity then that means subjectivity doesn’t have to be emotion filled, it is logical, in certain variables.

So: truth <> (unequals) objectivity (nor shared subjectivity).

 

[Llewellyn]

Woudl it be true to say that thought is objective but the conclusions it draws are not?

Thoughts (including the conclusions) are always translations and interpretations (Except, or less so, when you go automatic writing). First there is the specific language you use. It's an interpretation of information that we sense in some way. There is no language 'out there', not like there are trees (or there is, in an uninterpreted way).

 

[Eruca]

It seems to me this thread is moving towards a conclusion I made a while ago. My conclusion was that few areas,such as maths, can have true objectivity applied to them. For most areas in this illogical world we require a sort of all-encompassing subjectivity, and, importantly, an understanding of its subjective nature.

The world is like a piece of art, if you are unwilling to be subjective you will never appreciate or understand the entire painting.

So maybe thought isn't objective because someone who thought entirely objectively would be unable to understand our world.

Hell, maybe this is why some NTs are so depressed.

 

[wildcat]

I have a theory, it worked on my cat. I'm going to stick a bell on your brain Mr Wildcat. That way I can tell where you're thinking.

You create your thoughts?
You are a creation of thoughts.

Life is what is left.

 

[Kalach]

Thought objective?

Which "thought", the product or the process?

And what "objective, the one where your thinking is unclouded by personal bias or the one where you think things that really are true?

Somebody read Wittgenstein's Private Language argument and report back. I think it goes: if the language inside my head were truly private--that's to say, created by me and me alone, without at least some objective reference to something genuinely "shared" by other persons--aka "subjective"--then it will be private even from me too. Which is to say, a private language is impossible. Without an independent, perceivable, identifiable object of some kind, there is logically no basis for identifying the meaning of any of the terms of the language. You won't be able to tell yourself what words mean. Something like that.

Next, you have to assume that God didn't fill up your head with a bunch of meanings and set you loose to roam around inside your apparent head with your supposed body and a bunch of other seeming people. Because he could have done that, and really you're just a Matrix-blob in an isolation tank. But you know what? If that's the way it worked, if some outside agency plugged a bunch of subjective facts into your head and made you dream a reality, then there is still something out there...

So... yeah, thought is objective.

Or at least it has a chance to be.

 

[ajblaise]

Thought is the rational and objective utilization of the mind, so yes. What we think about can be influenced by feelings, perceptions, interpretations, etc. but the thought itself is still thought.

 

[wildcat]

Thought is the rational and objective utilization of the mind, so yes. What we think about can be influenced by feelings, perceptions, interpretations, etc. but the thought itself is still thought.

Understanding is in the beginning.
Somebody says something, or you read something.. you do not get it.
Suddenly you say: Heureka! Now I get it!
You are back.

Is a thought process rational in itself?
Only when thought has returned to the thinker.
Understanding is a catch.

Under-stand. Ver-stehen. Capire?

Not to stand. Nicht zu stehen. Capire.

Thought is rational when nothing stands in the way. Then the mind is quiet.
Who stands in the way? You do.

 

[Anentropic IxTx]

Usually

Thought are not objective but they are the most objective thing we have.

Agreed.

 

[wildcat]

Thought objective?

Which "thought", the product or the process?

And what "objective, the one where your thinking is unclouded by personal bias or the one where you think things that really are true?

Somebody read Wittgenstein's Private Language argument and report back. I think it goes: if the language inside my head were truly private--that's to say, created by me and me alone, without at least some objective reference to something genuinely "shared" by other persons--aka "subjective"--then it will be private even from me too. Which is to say, a private language is impossible. Without an independent, perceivable, identifiable object of some kind, there is logically no basis for identifying the meaning of any of the terms of the language. You won't be able to tell yourself what words mean. Something like that.

Next, you have to assume that God didn't fill up your head with a bunch of meanings and set you loose to roam around inside your apparent head with your supposed body and a bunch of other seeming people. Because he could have done that, and really you're just a Matrix-blob in an isolation tank. But you know what? If that's the way it worked, if some outside agency plugged a bunch of subjective facts into your head and made you dream a reality, then there is still something out there...

So... yeah, thought is objective.

Or at least it has a chance to be.

Meaning does not portray the word.
Word portrays the meaning.

 

[wildcat]

What is the meaning of life?
Life is what is left.
What is what is left?
What is.

 

[wildcat]

I was thinking that thought can be subjective because part of what initiates the thought process is what we see or take in with our other senses. Everyone looks out at the world through a glass that is colored by their own pre-conceived ideas and beliefs. So the thought-sample is tainted upon receipt.

yes.

 

[miss fortune]

What is the meaning of life?
Life is what is left.
What is what is left?
What is.

You're quite right.

Life is what we have- it's what unites us and divides us.

I'd say though that it's more like a good sushi roll- pop it into your mouth whole and savor it that way. If you dissect it, or think about it, it's ruined

I know a lot of people who hate sushi...

 

[wildcat]

Yes.

Weight does not counter.
Balance does.

Weight is what is left.
Of the counter.

A cell is a compact.
The idea of a cell is to tame oxygen.

Do not break the cell.
Eat sushi.

 

[Kalach]

Meaning does not portray the word.
Word portrays the meaning.

Yeah.

And in the absence of an action to link the word to the meaning--for example, if there were no real objects, thus fundamentally no chance to even start the process of linking anything to anything--then there isn't any portrait.

Nothing outside your head means nothing inside your head.

Without the first input, minds are stillborn.

I could go on.

But I might wrong.

Ramma lamma.