User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 32

  1. #11
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post

    So as you may have guessed by now, the reason I use the word "relative" is because human experiences are not absolute or complete. Any person may experience the same set of natural conditions in a slightly different way. Hence, the objectivity of the natural world (the speed of air molecules) may be absolute, but the human world is for all intensive purposes, relative to our experience.
    Ah, but can experience ever be absolute?

    What is the nature of experience, but the expression of an event? The nuances of which trickle south into the trenches of our personal biological hierarchy, awaiting our (flawed) classification.

    From a philosophical basis, what is "truth"? The interplay of biochemistry (your air molecules) cobbles most of our sensory expressions into an approximate biological package (unless the recipient is without otherwise-natural sensory systems). A smell is rarely seen.

    Is this fuzzy globule of pre-biologically-processed information "truth"?

  2. #12
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Ah, but can experience ever be absolute?
    Of course we can. Because we created absolution. Absolute is a human concept, derived from human perceptions, which were in turn derived from human sensory experiences. If that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have a word for "absolute". You have to understand that "absolute" is a function of the Universe, and it only exists because we define it. The actual structural properties which could be observed in the natural world, which we might define as "absolute" are simply the structure, and are in no way changed with or without the concept. Pretty much in the same way as defining the color "blue", doesn't mean it exists outside of human perception. In the natural world it is only a particular wavelength of light that our visual receptors interpret a certain way, and that experience, or function if you will, is what we comprehend as blue.

    Think of every absolute you know, and determine whether you can define it any other way than as a function (or experience). You will find that it is always a relation in which it is dependent on something else.

    For example, "I think therefore I am" explains how "thinking" is dependent upon "existing". For this particular absolute, which was Descartes's only absolute, we find that two other concepts, "thinking" and "existence" are used as an argument of absolution.

    So I submit, that "absolute" is meaningless in the natural world. It is not structural, but a humanly defined function of structure. "Pure," "perfect," "complete," are similarly defined absolute concepts which exist only because humans define particular parameters of natural structures in that way. In other words, the natural world cannot distinguish between absolute and imperfect. The parameters that exist separating those two things exist only in the human mind.

    What is the nature of experience, but the expression of an event? The nuances of which trickle south into the trenches of our personal biological hierarchy, awaiting our (flawed) classification.
    Experience is a pattern that occurs as a result of an event.

    Senses > Perceptions > Concepts > Reasoning

    However, our sense and perceptions are certainly limited, otherwise we would experience everything more or less the same way.

    From a philosophical basis, what is "truth"? The interplay of biochemistry (your air molecules) cobbles most of our sensory expressions into an approximate biological package (unless the recipient is without otherwise-natural sensory systems). A smell is rarely seen.

    Is this fuzzy globule of pre-biologically-processed information "truth"?
    "Truth" is a human concept. It can be fairly objective in the human relative/contingent world, but it is subjective, or pretty much meaningless, in the natural world. The natural world is incapable of distinguishing the truth from a lie, and it is therefore it is a human function.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #13
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post

    "Truth" is a human concept. It can be fairly objective in the human relative/contingent world, but it is subjective, or pretty much meaningless, in the natural world. The natural world is incapable of distinguishing the truth from a lie, and it is therefore it is a human function.
    Yes. Quite.

    Truth is the absence of inaccuracy; a qualification of a perceptual engine. Like consciousness, truth is fictive - a recreation of events leading up to an approximate understanding, hinged on our shared biological faculties.

    Nicely said, kiddo.

  4. #14
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Yes. Quite.

    Truth is the absence of inaccuracy; a qualification of a perceptual engine. Like consciousness, truth is fictive - a recreation of events leading up to an approximate understanding, hinged on our shared biological faculties.

    Nicely said, kiddo.
    Thank you.

    You bring up some interesting points about biology. It makes me wonder if perhaps the truest path of human nature is utilizing experiences to fulfill the greatest amount of biological potential.

    (Relatively speaking of course)
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  5. #15
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default Values Are Objective in the Human World?

    Kiddo, I don't understand your use of the word "objective" to describe values in the human world. I'm confused. How are you defining "objective"? To me it would imply there can be an objective standard by which to judge how good or bad somebody's or some society's values are. Based on other things you've said, I don't think this is what you have in mind. So I don't know what you mean.

  6. #16
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    So as you may have guessed by now, the reason I use the word "relative" is because human experiences are not absolute or complete. Any person may experience the same set of natural conditions in a slightly different way. Hence, the objectivity of the natural world (the speed of air molecules) may be absolute, but the human world is, for all intensive purposes, relative to our experience.
    Okay, thanks for clarifying your meaning. I'm getting confused by your use of words like "objective" and "absolute", though. This confusion arises in my mind for several reasons. One reason is that the origin of the popularity of the concept of "relativity" was Einstein's theories of relativity, which apply to the natural universe. You wrote somewhere else about measurements and parameters which we have created. By "objective", do you mean "measurable"? Or if that is too narrow, do you mean discoverable and falsifiable by the scientific method? When you say "absolute", are you using it in the sense of the way you used it in another post in this thread - a pragmatic creation of human beings?

    But that would then make the objectivity of the natural world a construct of the human world that is relative to our experience. It then seems to me to make the duality circle back in upon itself to become a meaningless distinction.

    I don't mean to limit the discussion to semantics, but I want to understand what you mean before moving on to more interesting pastures. Otherwise I could just be talking to my reading of an ink blot instead of to what you're really trying to say.

  7. #17
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SquirrelTao View Post
    Kiddo, I don't understand your use of the word "objective" to describe values in the human world. I'm confused. How are you defining "objective"? To me it would imply there can be an objective standard by which to judge how good or bad somebody's or some society's values are. Based on other things you've said, I don't think this is what you have in mind. So I don't know what you mean.
    Objective, in this sense, means independent of perception. All things that exist in the natural world are objective. However, once human beings take in information about objects in the natural world, they form perceptions of them, and they are therefore no longer "objective".

    However, once individuals form perceptions, they can compare them to the perceptions of other individuals. In doing so we form "concepts". Whereas concepts are a human creation, and in no way objective in the natural world, since they are based on many human perceptions, they can be considered objective in the human world because most if not everyone can percieve them. So since values like equality and liberty can be experienced in much the same way by everyone, they are arguably "objective" or independent of perception in the human world.

    Relative goes far beyond Einstein's theory. It translates as "in relation to". For example, cultural relativism is the concept that a cultural system can be viewed only in terms of the principles, background, frame of reference, and history that characterize it. This view holds that there are no absolutes or universals within any culture.

    Cultural relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The human world is obviously "in relation to" the natural world which we can only percieve through our limited senses. The fact that individuals can percieve the world so differently demonstrates the limits of our capacities and the inherent relativity of the human world to the natural world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #18
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    That isn't what that says. Only the human (relative) world would cease to exist. In fact, the first princple states, "There is an objective reality."
    Oops. I mean't to add "n't"'s to the end of my "would"s. I was very tired when I wrote that post. I must've confused your position and Berkeley's for a moment.

    In view of this, how do you know the objective world wouldn't cease to exist if you ceased to exist?

    SquirrelTao put it nicely, so I'll just quote him/her... it?

    [QUOTE=SquirrelTao;220919][...]

    But that would then make the objectivity of the natural world a construct of the human world that is relative to our experience. It then seems to me to make the duality circle back in upon itself to become a meaningless distinction.


    QUOTE=Kiddo;220534]... We already have standard measurements. Feet, Meters, Seconds, Pounds, Kilograms, etc. These kind of relative standardized measures are the means by which we attempt to measure objective reality.
    If the objective cannot be distinguished from the subjective, and the meaning of the subjective is derived from experience, then how do you know that some new experience won't contradict everything you thought you knew about the objective world?

    How do you know some new experience won't force you to radically re-interpret your worldview and force you to revise or replace all of your standards of measurement?

    What, if anything, do you know about the objective world?

  9. #19
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    If the objective cannot be distinguished from the subjective, and the meaning of the subjective is derived from experience, then how do you know that some new experience won't contradict everything you thought you knew about the objective world?
    Behold, you just discovered science. Nothing is accepted as absolutely certain, only based upon probability of certainty.

    How do you know some new experience won't force you to radically re-interpret your worldview and force you to revise or replace all of your standards of measurement?
    I imagine new experiences will make us rethink everything. Of course, such experiences come very rarely. Not too long ago, we were certain the world was the center of the universe and everything revolved around us, but with the work of people like Galileo, we had to rethink everything.

    What, if anything, do you know about the objective world?
    I know that it can only be expressed quantitatively, since all qualitative properties are what we derive from our experience. Physics and mathematics are the closest we will ever get to understanding the objective world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  10. #20
    Senior Member SquirrelTao's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INXX
    Posts
    198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    SquirrelTao put it nicely, so I'll just quote him/her... it?
    Her will do fine

Similar Threads

  1. The Nature of Ne -- a metaphorical visual
    By spirilis in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-20-2009, 01:55 AM
  2. On the nature of ethics
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 04:55 PM
  3. The Nature of Fi -- a metaphorical visual
    By arcticangel02 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 07:12 PM
  4. The nature of certainty...
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 08:58 PM
  5. The Nature of Generosity
    By Mycroft in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 10-08-2007, 05:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO