• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Nature of Values

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
Would you mind summarizing your stance?

I simply see a naked reply.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Would you mind summarizing your stance?

I simply see a naked reply.

This was more meant to continue a discussion from another thread, but okay.

It would be very difficult for me to share my beliefs about the nature of values without first explaining my perspective on the nature of the universe.

I've studied all four major ontological views and I found a little truth in each of them, so I sought to create my own understanding of the world. I came to the conclusion that there are two worlds. There is the natural (objective) world and there is the human (relative) world. I outlined my reasoning back in this old thread.

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/128547-post25.html

I determined that values are inherently subjective in the natural world, but objective in the human world. No human being can exist without values without eventually going insane since they are essential to the ego, but values ultimately don't exist in the natural world. In fact all concepts are ultimately perceptions of human beings, and they only exist objectively in the human world, but become rather meaningless in the natural world. That does not negate the physical existence of what those concepts are based upon, merely the distinctions by which we define them.

The natural world and human world exist in a dualism. The natural world provides the structure and the human world provides the function. This old Taoist vase analogy provides a picture of how this works.

Imagine a clay vase. What defines it as a vase and not a lump of clay? It has a structure, which contains an empty space. The vase isn't defined simply by the clay that makes it up, but also, the space within the clay. It's simultaneously defined by both existence and non existence.

Or phrased differently...

A vase is defined by both what makes it up, the clay, and what doesn't, the space within it. If the space wasn't there, it wouldn't be a vase. Therefore it is defined by both what exists (the clay) and what doesn't exist (the space). It is simultaneously defined objectively (the clay) and relativistically (the space).

So any value, whether it is liberty, equality, etc. is inherently subjective in the natural world and is inherently objective in the human world (at least to the individual who holds them). In other words, values are simply a function of a natural human process that we experiences as "value". But the actual concept has little or no meaning in the natural world.
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
Ah, I see you started the thread. I haven't been able to get online much today, but I'm not ignoring it. I'm interested in the topic and will return to it when I have more time.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
I like everything you say Kiddo except for this:

"The natural world and human world exist in a dualism."

This kind of conflicts with the era we live in, IE a post-scientific revolution world where everything, including humans, are presupposed to be a byproduct of the natural world. We are not special when it comes to the Universe. Qualia est quanta, thusly everything that is human is natural and knowable.

I don't necessarily believe that, I just kind of assume it in my goals as a scientist. So I guess the question I'm asking is - what are the limits of science to explain human psychology, if any? Are not human "values" a function of some phenomenon in the human brain that we will one day be able to objectively measure?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
I like everything you say Kiddo except for this:

"The natural world and human world exist in a dualism."

This kind of conflicts with the era we live in, IE a post-scientific revolution world where everything, including humans, are presupposed to be a byproduct of the natural world. We are not special when it comes to the Universe. Qualia est quanta, thusly everything that is human is natural and knowable.

I don't necessarily believe that, I just kind of assume it in my goals as a scientist. So I guess the question I'm asking is - what are the limits of science to explain human psychology, if any? Are not human "values" a function of some phenomenon in the human brain that we will one day be able to objectively measure?

Humans are somewhat special in that they can conceive concepts, especially symbols. No other species on this planet seems to exhibit this trait. But I wasn't arguing that the human world and natural world exist in a metaphysical dualism, but rather only as far as human conception is concerned, that is the nature of the universe.

As far as being able to objectively measure the processes of the brain, I believe we already do that with MRI imagining and other neuro-technologies. Our grasp may always be somewhat vague, such as when we imagine photons of light hitting receptors in the eye which leads to what we percieve as vision or vibrations in the air moving our eardrum which leads to what we percieve as sound, but I believe we have the idea down.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
Wow, you really thought all this through.

I don't think its an illusion, but I have come to the following conclusions about the nature of the universe.

1. There is an objective reality.
2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.
3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.
4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.
5. The only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one, since if we did not exist, there would be no one to percieve the objective one. Whereas the relative reality would cease to exist with us.

And this is the tough one.

6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.

Now if you have any contention with any of those points then let me know.

How do you know that all reality would cease to exist if humans ceased to exist? (i.e., how do you know that all reality would cease to exist if you ceased to exist?).

"To be is to be perceived," as Berkeley said. How do you know there is an objective world?

Why should this or that "standard of measurement" be adopted as the standard that gives knowledge of the (supposed) objective reality that you posit?

sigh... I need to go to bed. But we need to talk... seriously.

Cheers.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
How do you know that all reality would cease to exist if humans ceased to exist? (i.e., how do you know that all reality would cease to exist if you ceased to exist?).

:huh:

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."

Why should this or that "standard of measurement" be adopted as the standard that gives knowledge of the (supposed) objective reality that you posit?

You misunderstand. 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.

sigh... I need to go to bed. But we need to talk... seriously.

I think you need to reread what I posted. :yes:
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
Relative space

Several thoughts come to mind, but I'll start with trying to understand what you mean by relative space. I assume by the context that you don't mean to speak of relative space in a more literal, scientific way, a la Einstein. When you call the space in the vase "relative", I was not sure at first if I understood what you meant. When I tried to understand your analogy, about the third thing I thought of was the artistic concept of "negative shape". An artist drawing a vase may not choose to focus primarily on the vase. Instead, they could choose to focus on the negative shape inside the vase or around the vase.

I didn't find that very helpful to me. It didn't seem to provide an analogy to the rest of what you said. When I thought more about it, what seemed to fit better in your context is the idea that a human being can choose to utilize the shape within the vase in many different ways. You seem to mean that there is a multiplicity of possibilities which can only be actualized by human beings. Once the human beings actualize these potentials, these potentials become reality. They are realities that are contingent upon human thought and action.

May I humbly suggest that the word "contingent" may be more precise than the word "relative"? To me, anyway, it is more clear, unless I misunderstand your intended meaning.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
You seem to mean that there is a multiplicity of possibilities which can only be actualized by human beings. Once the human beings actualize these potentials, these potentials become reality. They are realities that are contingent upon human thought and action.

May I humbly suggest that the word "contingent" may be more precise than the word "relative"? To me, anyway, it is more clear, unless I misunderstand your intended meaning.

Contingent works well, but it isn't the entirety of what I am trying to express.

Humans derive the function of the natural universe. We understand it in relation to ourselves, namely within our concepts which come from our perceptions which are in turn derived from our sensory experiences. In other words, the natural universe provides the structure, but our experiences provide what we comprehend as the function. As human beings are capable of experiencing the same natural structure in different ways, humans have a relative/contingent way of comprehending the function.

A rather simplistic way of understanding this is imagining the temperature of a room. Even though the actual temperature of the room stays the same, one person may experience the room as "hot" whereas another person may experience the room as "cold". This relative/contingent understanding, as well as the concepts "hot" and "cold", the perceptions and concept of temperature, and the actual sensory experiences, are all components of the human (relative/contingent) world. The actual speed of the air molecules (which we define as the concept of temperature) in the room is the component of the natural world.

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.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
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"?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
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.
 

Night

Boring old fossil
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
4,755
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5/8
"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.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
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)
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
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.
 

SquirrelTao

New member
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
198
MBTI Type
INXX
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.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
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.
 

Owl

desert pelican
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
717
MBTI Type
INTP
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?

[...]

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?
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
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.
 
Top