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