• 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.

"Perception is reality"

L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
all of his philosophies are awsome but being the NF that i am i specifically love his view of good/evil.

I conquered the concept of good and evil a while ago. I decided to be that gray area in between.

What is your interpretation of his text on good/evil?
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
I conquered the concept of good and evil a while ago. I decided to be that gray area in between.

What is your interpretation of his text on good/evil?
well he basically states that it is relative from a human standpoint and that everyone may have different views but none are right or wrong.

from broader perspective he basically states that good = things that are good for humans in the long run and bad = things that are bad for humans in the long run

he then states that there really isn't any good or bad because it is all going to happen anyway blah blah blah... ill kill it if i even try

course wikipedia would do a much better job at stating this.
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
well he basically states that it is relative from a human standpoint and that everyone may have different views but none are right or wrong.

from broader perspective he basically states that good = things that are good for humans in the long run and bad = things that are bad for humans in the long run

he then states that there really isn't any good or bad because it is all going to happen anyway blah blah blah... ill kill it if i even try

course wikipedia would do a much better job at stating this.

Didn't feel like reading through big complex words and sentences late at night. Plus I like to hear others input on information that is quite controversial.
 

mlittrell

New member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
1,387
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
9w1
Didn't feel like reading through big complex words and sentences late at night. Plus I like to hear others input on information that is quite controversial.
its cool. skim over it if you ever have the time.
 

Snow Turtle

New member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
1,335
There is an objective reality... however its nature is irrelevent to us. That's what I've been trying to say all this time. Objective reality... whatever it might be is not useful to us in any way. Why not focus our energy on the subjective where it can be of use?

I don't know...
I think the reminder that there is an objective reality is extremely useful in the sense that the universe without us doesn't really care. It's reminds me personally not to be so ego-centric and that even though I add meaning and interpretation to things, at the end of the day it's only I who do so. But I guess I agree with you there.

There are some people out there who take this idea of subjectiveness to the next level. They believe everything in the world is subjective, and that everything really is just an extention of their own thoughts. What they don't percieve or is conscious about doesn't exist. Which in some messed up way is kinda true...
 

Aleph-One

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
155
MBTI Type
INTJ
It is somewhat trivially true to say that each of us has only our own subjective experience of the world to go on, never anything more. But we are perfectly capable of generalizing experiences which seem to share certain commonalities, and then putting these general claims to experiment to see if we have made a correct generalization or not. The very essence of explanation and cognition is, indeed, generalization. We may observe other people engaged in their process of inquiry and, if they arrive at the same conclusions, then it is very difficult to advance the claim that each of us has some private reality or truth which others do not have.

This is true.

And science is based on many, many perceptions of reality. And all these perceptions are analysed statistically.

Then other independent scientists seek to replicate the perceptions and analysis them, and then validate or falsify them.

What becomes very apparent in all this is that one perception does does not give a good picture of reality.

The important thing is to reality-test our perceptions.
This is a very good point. Scientific theories often strive to be as general as possible. The claims of a theory are made so that they carry as little dependence on a particular point of view as possible. This is why physics concerns itself so much with the invariance of the laws of physics under transformations of reference frames, for example. If someone claims that they are exempt from a factual statement or its consequences because of their point of view, then they are unaware that those factual statements are formulated to be preserved across points of view. In any case, they must offer evidence (rather than bald assertions of metaphysical solipsism), to suggest that a claim has not captured some grain of truth.
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
Hi. I'm going to have a go at the basis of your contentions - please don't take it personally

It is somewhat trivially true to say that each of us has only our own subjective experience of the world to go on, never anything more. But we are perfectly capable of generalizing experiences which seem to share certain commonalities, and then putting these general claims to experiment to see if we have made a correct generalization or not. The very essence of explanation and cognition is, indeed, generalization. We may observe other people engaged in their process of inquiry and, if they arrive at the same conclusions, then it is very difficult to advance the claim that each of us has some private reality or truth which others do not have.

This reminds me of Russell's Chicken

You are, if I may be reductive, stating that commonality in modes of perception which come to a similar conclusions are inherantly worthy? All you are confirming is that you share the same biases. You appear to have the view, Great minds think alike. I prefer the saying, Fools seldom differ. You can side with Russell's chickens if you wish, but I'd rather be the farmer.

If someone claims that they are exempt from a factual statement or its consequences because of their point of view, then they are unaware that those factual statements are formulated to be preserved across points of view.

Indeed. You are criticising an agent for not playing a rigged game! I would congratulate him for spotting the trap.

In any case, they must offer evidence... to suggest that a claim has not captured some grain of truth.

Why? I have better things to do.

All the best.
 

Aleph-One

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
155
MBTI Type
INTJ
I have the point of view that great minds allow repeatable and consistent experimental evidence to have the final say in their valuation of statements. Anything else is solipsistic.

The biases of cognition are not arbitrary. If carefully controlled observation repeatedly yields the same result, then it demands more than mere axiomatic skepticism to attack that result. The control of observation is designed with the elimination of biases in mind (the fashionable appeals to the so-called theory-ladenness of observation are themselves undermined by the fact that scientists who subscribed to the phlogiston theory of combustion obtained the same measurements as those who subscribed to the theory which replaced it). And I am criticizing someone for not playing the game, but there is no trap there. As I have said, the statements of a physical theory are formulated to be as invariant as possible. We are, in other words, attempting to discover or construct a set of statements which can be made about the world which are independent of a point of view (and biased or not, we discover an error of generalization through experiment if one has been made), but still retain predictive content about the system we wish to analyze. An agent who thinks that point of view invariant generalizations are a trap cannot think, since this generalization is the essence of thought. It is a self-refuting position, much like any other assertion of radical skepticism.
 

Aleph-One

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
155
MBTI Type
INTJ
What do you mean by "this"? My position or the whole conversation? I'm certainly not being insincere in my position. I won't argue something unless I believe it.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
It's the fundamental premise of politics, and a good working thesis for a career in advertising. See Wag the Dog.
 

Aleph-One

New member
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
155
MBTI Type
INTJ
Oh, I see. You were using the movie Devil's Advocate as an example rather than saying that the argument was being done pro bono. Sorry about the confusion. I think examining the implications of any brain in a vat scenario will do just as well. I'll write something about that later this week.
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
Oh, I see. You were using the movie Devil's Advocate as an example rather than saying that the argument was being done pro bono. Sorry about the confusion. I think examining the implications of any brain in a vat scenario will do just as well. I'll write something about that later this week.

I can be Al Pacino.

The biases of cognition are not arbitrary.

Exactly. See Russell's chicken.
 
Top