Action (down to the level of the smallest motion, breathing, heart beating, etc.) - is the perfect expression of value, as constrained by percieved circumstance and physical reality.

Of course this introduces the question:

Is my perception of my circumstance actually my circumstance? In what ways does my perception limit my freedom that my actual circumstance does not?

No?

How do you define value in an objective manner?

Yes, your values spring forth from your life's circumstances, including your personal history. Wether your perception of your circumstances are accurate or not is irrelevant to your experience of reality. Your experience will always be relative to your subjective perception of reality, regardless of what the object one entails. And of course, from that follows that your perception can limit your freedom even though your actual circumstances are more favourable. The actual circumstances may also be less positive then one might think, in which case you are in the danger of making a "mistake".

So... what's your question again?

Is my perception of my circumstance actually my circumstance? In what ways does my perception limit my freedom that my actual circumstance does not?

No?

I think about this sometimes. I wish I had an answer myself or anything to say about the question.

I think that your perceived curcumstance is really just a reflection of your current state of mind, wherever your mind might be, physical or not. Sometimes I look at breathing as a symbolic thing, representing something else that isn't there... but most times I see it as a dull processes that keeps me alive.

Define value in an objective manner... LOL.

I can define how it functions subjectively, that is all.

The nature of value is that it is subjective.

Value serves function.

The function of an animal is to survive and pass along its genes, generally speaking.

This function is complicated by man in the aspect of reflection on perception.

The "survive and pass along your genes" function becomes complicated by perception and morphs into "what you percieve as survival (which interestingly, does not necessarily include passing on your genes)".

Value is expressed in action as you act to survive in the way you come to know survival. It is that you choose an action over all other potential actions, that expresses your value. You do not have to realize that you chose to have made a choice. Value is still expressed, perfectly.

Define value in an objective manner... LOL.

This puts a strain on my brain. To have value something must have necessary use. Every uses independant of other necessary uses increases its value.

That sucks. I tried. :rolleyes:

This puts a strain on my brain.

Don't let it drag you down. :)

To have value something must have necessary use.

But what is necessary in this case, is subjective. I could find use for something you find completely worthless.

Every uses independant of other necessary uses increases its value.

Don't know what that means. Bad sentence.

That sucks. I tried. :rolleyes:

Well you tried for shit mister! Try harder!!!!!!!!

LOL...

Or don't, up to you of course. :)

Yes, necessary use is subjective, but that goes alone with the second half of the definition.

"Very uses independant of other necessary uses increases its value." which basically means that if it is useful for me and not you, then it has less value than if it has value for both of us.

But of course, it sees I am assuming that all thing are of equal value to one, and its value seems to increase by a multiple of some number greater than 1 for each person added.

But then what about value for all things not living? Like fire values oxygen. OMG... I could writing a paper on this and still get nothing out of it.

Wait, does saying that necessary use for my definition of "objective value" make it a contradict the word I am trying to define?

Is my perception of my circumstance actually my circumstance? In what ways does my perception limit my freedom that my actual circumstance does not?


Nothing changes our circumstance more than our perception of it, perceiving being the most creative thing that we do, more a matter of choice than anything else, because nothing is freer, more flexible, more instantly changeable than the active mind.

--- Ron.

Why should we be slaves of our values? Yes, values are subjective. They can only be defined in an objective manner by comparing and contrasting our individual values and finding similarities. For instance, we might have a similar value which we express as compassion. Even if our subjective definition of compassion is different, we still perceive as though we are communicating the same value. The difference in our perceptions of the value may cause confusion.

Values are very important. Even business plans have values in them. Values which companies use as guidelines to operating and even solving challenging problems. If there is a variance between our subjective perception of reality and the objective one, then our actions may lead us through the wrong path, regardless of whether we are basing our actions on our values or not. In this sense, a mistake is an action in which a value is used out of context due to a lack of proper measurement of reality.

I particularly like using business plans as example to discussing such philosophical matters. They tend to take as much as possible into account.

Anyways... does that answer the question?

Values which companies use as guidelines to operating and even solving challenging problems.

Off topic but 90% of business decisions are based around lowering the amount of tax they have to pay.

One of the most common values in business plans is to maximize profits to benefit investors, or simply to maintain themselves in business. This is an example, one of Starbucks valus, or as they call it, "Guiding Principles":

"- Recognize that profitability is essential to our future success"

Btw, does modern businessess lack value? Yes, many times. Many businesses don't even have a plan. And many that do only care about profits. So... yeah...

Nothing changes our circumstance more than our perception of it, perceiving being the most creative thing that we do, more a matter of choice than anything else, because nothing is freer, more flexible, more instantly changeable than the active mind.

--- Ron.

Yup.

Fits perfectly with the point of the OP I'd say.

EDIT: and now that I think about it, it is ultimately the point I might have made given what I suspected to be the development of the conversation, though surely not so succinctly.

I think most people miss the point about choice, resigning to helplessness or idealism.

But then what about value for all things not living? Like fire values oxygen. OMG... I could writing a paper on this and still get nothing out of it.

Fire values nothing. Value requires sentience.

Truthseeker, you are so far from the point it seems you haven't read the op or my explanation of value. Your babblings about "values" are entirely irrelevant to the topic. "values" are something people claim to have. Value is expressed in what you do. You take a shit because you value it. You breath because you value it. You type here because you value it. Every single tiny action you ever undertaken, or any thought you've ever thought is an expression of exactly what you value. The same goes for every action ever performed by all creatures who live and have lived.

Truthseeker is missing the point, and I am trying to define something that doesn't exist... I think I should leave :p

Truthseeker is missing the point, and I am trying to define something that doesn't exist... I think I should leave :p

Hehehe.. well, at least you're relevant. Counts for something to me.

One could make an argument for fire being alive I suppose. Defining life is tricky, but I don't think that which is not alive has the potential to value anything. Know what I mean? Do you disagree?

Hehehe.. well, at least you're relevant. Counts for something to me.

One could make an argument for fire being alive I suppose. Defining life is tricky, but I don't think that which is not alive has the potential to value anything. Know what I mean? Do you disagree?

Well, I wasn't really suggesting that fire was alive. But then again, as you say, defining life is difficult. Pretty hard. Maybe one day I will try, but today I am just not interested.

Also, I want to know what it means to value something. I suppose we can make classifications of value. One, of course, things that humans value. All others for things that are not human. I see fire valuing fuel, but not in the same sense as a human values food (fuel, too). Or maybe they are really just the same?

Ah, the limitations and variations of words.

I think that value is natually an economic term.

dictionary.com says "Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor". IMO, when one speaks of the inanimate to possess value, they are projecting themselves onto the thing, as they have learned to do to understand things.

value is utility to me (utility to the percieved survival function as noted in posts above), but the term is used to express a lot of variants on the idea. to me when considering the human landscape and the minds that comprise it, I use the term in that sense. it's what you decided outweighed the opportunity cost of any other potential action.

it could be said that fire values fuel, but IMO, chemical reactions don't strive to survive in any way. They just function according the properties of the parameters of the universe. So do people, with with the extra thing of choice.. which substantiates to notion of value. If there is no choice, value is moot.

Truthseeker, you are so far from the point it seems you haven't read the op or my explanation of value. Your babblings about "values" are entirely irrelevant to the topic. "values" are something people claim to have. Value is expressed in what you do. You take a shit because you value it. You breath because you value it. You type here because you value it. Every single tiny action you ever undertaken, or any thought you've ever thought is an expression of exactly what you value. The same goes for every action ever performed by all creatures who live and have lived.
I didn't miss it. That's exactly what I said.

I guess you don't understand th every complex words I use. I'm sorry. I thought you understood English better then you do. I guess I should use some slang with you... :o

Hey, wes. So let me answer your original question once again, in a simpler way...

Yes, your brain is playing tricks on you. :rolleyes:

Is my perception of my circumstance actually my circumstance? In what ways does my perception limit my freedom that my actual circumstance does not?

No?


Like they say, some people see the glass is half-empty, others see it as half-full.

If one sees it as half-empty, one will be reluctant to drink, and if, then one will drink it miserably, failing to savour it.
If one sees it as half-full, one will look forward to drinking it, and then savouring every drop.

Yup.

Fits perfectly with the point of the OP I'd say.

EDIT: and now that I think about it, it is ultimately the point I might have made given what I suspected to be the development of the conversation, though surely not so succinctly.

Ron is so smart! ;)


:o :)

Action (down to the level of the smallest motion, breathing, heart beating, etc.) - is the perfect expression of value, as constrained by percieved circumstance and physical reality.

This is an interesting idea Wes, but I want to understand it better. How far down the biological scale would this go? You mentioned your heartbeat as an expression of value, but not fire. Does "value" require a causal relation to conscious awareness? What about blood clotting, or the electron transport chain - in a person and in a bacteria? What about a cancerous cell dividing? Have I misunderstood you?

...Of course this introduces the question:
Is my perception of my circumstance actually my circumstance? In what ways does my perception limit my freedom that my actual circumstance does not? Do you mean that being value driven, our perception is limited, which limits our freedom? You might be interested in "Field theory" (part of Gestalt (Fritz Perls et. al.), there is the concept of the "field" of awareness, from which we select certain perceptions which become "figure", while the rest fades to "ground". So if I'm hungry, a Big-Mac becomes figure, while tactile sensations of the pick-pocket stealing my wallet are in ground. All are in my field of (unconscious) awareness. We select, and in doing so, limit our choices.

Truthseeker, you are so far from the point it seems you haven't read the op or my explanation of value. Your babblings about "values" are entirely irrelevant to the topic. "values" are something people claim to have. Value is expressed in what you do. You take a shit because you value it. You breath because you value it. You type here because you value it. Every single tiny action you ever undertaken, or any thought you've ever thought is an expression of exactly what you value. The same goes for every action ever performed by all creatures who live and have lived.

Aren't "values" derived from what we value? The act of breathing has immediate value (which increases if you can't) because you have evolved to value life, and breathing is a necessary process for life. Isn't valuing life an example of an inherent set of "values", from which all sorts of ethical consequences arise? Just a thought!

This is an interesting idea Wes, but I want to understand it better. How far down the biological scale would this go?

All the way.

You mentioned your heartbeat as an expression of value, but not fire. Does "value" require a causal relation to conscious awareness?

I would simply say that the term "value" loses any relevance outside the scope of life. I think value is only a useful term in terms of the potential for willful action. Regarding your opening question above, how far down the biological scale (subjectively) can willful action (even if subconscious) have impact? I'd say the answer is unknown, and potentially "all the way".

What about blood clotting, or the electron transport chain - in a person and in a bacteria? What about a cancerous cell dividing? Have I misunderstood you?

I think you got it.

Cells actively seek to fulfill their function. From an organizational perspective in the context of the OP, they can be seen as "one's children" perhaps, if you can flow with the drift. Can you control your childrens actions? Regardless you're still responsible for them. :) Can delve into that more later if you prefer.

Do you mean that being value driven, our perception is limited, which limits our freedom?

Not exactly. I mean that since action reflects value, and our perception doesn't necessarily reflect "reality" in terms of options available options... our limitations are set first by "reality" (in the physical, universal, circumstantial sense) and then by our mind, shrouding "reality" with doubt and/or misperception. Maybe that's the same thing. Doesn't seem to exactly jive to me.

You might be interested in "Field theory" (part of Gestalt (Fritz Perls et. al.), there is the concept of the "field" of awareness, from which we select certain perceptions which become "figure", while the rest fades to "ground". So if I'm hungry, a Big-Mac becomes figure, while tactile sensations of the pick-pocket stealing my wallet are in ground. All are in my field of (unconscious) awareness. We select, and in doing so, limit our choices.

If I find the time I'll check it out. Link me if you have a preferred direction.

Aren't "values" derived from what we value?

IMO, "values"... in the context they were introduced by the man/child which annoys me to no end, are social politics. They are what you claim to value and may or may not follow what you actually do.

The act of breathing has immediate value (which increases if you can't) because you have evolved to value life, and breathing is a necessary process for life.

Yup.

Isn't valuing life an example of an inherent set of "values", from which all sorts of ethical consequences arise? Just a thought!

Not exactly, but maybe. Depends on the angle you're pursuing I'd think. "valuing one's life" is "the survival instinct" and it is this from which value is generated, given circumstance and perception. Yeah I dunno, I don't see it that way but I could possibly be pursuaded. On first thought I reject it as what generates value is not necessarily value itself in the context of the OP. In some ways though, it is "the highest value". It, along with the capacity of brain, generates ego and all associated value functions. The notion is pretty debatable. I think it's probably valuable to look at it that way depending on what aspect of all this you're exploring.

Thank you for posting relevant, interesting, stimulating questions that clearly express relevant comprehension. I do hope we can delve into this further.

Wes,

I was going to give a quick expression of brentskill.
Fire values nothing. Value requires sentience.
nice but ...
There's got to be more to it than that, if I would be allowed an example;
"Fire" values? "value" requires? sentience???
wtf... ok, my logics terrible my bad, but this is saying we're obviously considering fire to have action, or fire to not have value? no, we're obviously considering ... fire to not have value? wait, what was i saying that makes no sence??? fire is objective then. it is a world of it's own. of course this is epistemological and not philosophy of mind
and er' thin'; but who's to say fire ... wtf, let me take this further.

I think that value is natually an economic term.
of course considering it that way we will arive with econimic terms... we're trying to define "action expresses value" and, I know this is off tense, but then again... aren't all my points?
stick with me....
if value is naturally an "economic term", ...
dictionary.com says "Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor". IMO, when one speaks of the inanimate to possess value, they are projecting themselves onto the thing, as they have learned to do to understand things.
obviously you're following this which is great and er' thin'; but...
and worth is usefullness or importance to the possessor; this takes my point further, and still hasn't destroyed it. the point is destruction of value down to the point of arriving with value; IMO with threads you can do this sort of thing; why then, hasn't the world been better, at least all the unanswers answered? at least then for that matter that it isn't answered. one or the other right?

Well, let me take my point farther wes.

but IMO, chemical reactions don't strive to survive in any way. They just function according the properties of the parameters of the universe. So do people, with with the extra thing of choice.. which substantiates to notion of value. If there is no choice, value is moot.
this almost destroys me. but what had i in mind when i didn't say a single word in the post?
what was i goiong to say? i know it's not destruction castration LOL yet... give me a second.

WTF.
What was I going to say?
Value ... no... it was freaking friend Absane who brought up the idea of subjectivity and it's ... defining subjectivity. OK, not today sorry he says! HA! I definately agree with him.

But no, it goes farther than the subjectivity; it is along these lines that I was going to mention something. I've forgot, and if you can find what i am trying to say, or, if this whole post WAS nothing, then... you decide.

Wes,

I was going to give a quick expression of brentskill.

nice but ...
There's got to be more to it than that, if I would be allowed an example;
"Fire" values? "value" requires? sentience???

Yes. To value something, there must be something valueing if you follow. A fire does not, because it cannot choose. If it has fuel, it burns - period. For a sentient being, some of its function allow the conscious reflection on a goal, and a subsequent choice. Exactly how much of its (a person's) function allows choice, is unknown.

wtf... ok, my logics terrible my bad, but this is saying we're obviously considering fire to have action, or fire to not have value?

Fire doesn't value anything, yes. One can value a fire but the fire cannot possess value itself, as in "valueing its fuel". Fire burns until it doesn't have fuel. It does not choose to take a break, change direction, sit, stand, type, reflect, etc. It simply functions as an aspect of nature... part of the tao.

no, we're obviously considering ... fire to not have value?

Well the statement is a little confusing because a person can value fire, or pretend they are fire by internally projecting themselves to be fire, or try to "think like it", but the fire doesn't *have* that value. It exists only in a mind, differently in each mind.

fire is objective then. it is a world of it's own.

Well, it's in part of the world around us, which we can only model. It is part of us, in that we witness it and integrate it into our model. It is like all things, part of the seemless whole. Fire is pure function.

Value is an abstract. It's an idea. A concept. It doesn't exist outside of the abstract world, which it appears at this time to me, that we can only confirm that sentient beings inhabit, and only the part of them that is the sentience exists there.

of course this is epistemological and not philosophy of mind

Bah it all blends together after a while. :)

and worth is usefullness or importance to the possessor;

But fire possesses nothing. To possess you must consider yourself "to own", and for fire, there is no self with which to consider anything.

the point is destruction of value down to the point of arriving with value;

To what end is that point? You can't destroy value without destroying sentience. If sentience exists and has the objective of continuity or longetivity, there will exist value.

IMO with threads you can do this sort of thing; why then, hasn't the world been better, at least all the unanswers answered?

I don't understand why you think the world is "bad" or "good". It just is. Bad are good are implicit of a particular perspective on it. A perspective can be controlled to some degree by the choices it makes. Maybe I misunderstood you.

Why would all the "unanswered questions" be answered?

at least then for that matter that it isn't answered. one or the other right?

Man you lost me. I think I was with you up till just above the last paragraph, but I'm just not sure what you're asking.

this almost destroys me. but what had i in mind when i didn't say a single word in the post?

Don't let yourself get destroyed on my account mister. I'm not sure why it would? What leads to your destruction from a statement like that? I should clarify that I meant "value is moot" to whatever we're referring - like we were referring to fire above. The beings with choices can still value it positively or negatively, or whatever mix.

Values are absatract concepts that reflect the circumstances which a human being grew up in. They are subjective in nature and guide the given human being to act in a certain way, under certain parameters, when problems arise.

Simple. Where's the discussion?

Thread closed.

I would explain the nature of your stupidity, but you see, explaining stupidity to the stupid cannot be effective. You know, because the fucker is stupid. Like you, you fucking moron, so either get on topic (which you've clearly demonstrated you're ill-equipped to do) or just fuck straight off, please.

Ha! Can't admit you are retarded, eh? :rolleyes:

What kind of a topic is that? :rolleyes:

No discussion here...
Thread closed. :D

Action (down to the level of the smallest motion, breathing, heart beating, etc.) - is the perfect expression of value, as constrained by percieved circumstance and physical reality.

Of course this introduces the question:

Is my perception of my circumstance actually my circumstance? In what ways does my perception limit my freedom that my actual circumstance does not?

No?

interesting. since subjectivity is running rampant as only it could due to the use of the word value, i will go on your interpretation of it as utility.

one thing that has me stuck...breathing, blood clotting, etc are automatic. i can only perform some action to cause myself not to breathe, but naturally without my consent, my body will continue on it's course until i actively make it stop. i do not choose for my blood to clot (or not to clot), my body does. i do see value in such things because i do not have to do much other than eat a merely sufficient amount to stay alive. as an active organism, i don't have to think about it. as far as utility goes, there is certainly inherent value in the automatic but only until i choose to be aware of such processes (which most people do not do daily). even if value is utility, they are not valueable until i recognize them as such. which segues into perception and circumstance...

your perception of your circumstance is most likely not your circumstance. now, if we break this down to mere biological processes, what you think is occurring is probably vastly different than what is actually occurring. breathing is pretty simple, so it seems. but it is a complex process that i don't think we can fully perceive as it is happening. reading a book about it may help us to grasp breathing (or the process) in general, but how we perceive the goings on within ourselves imo can't be truly understood. now, to take circumstance outside of the body and into the mind, it is incredibly difficult to see things clearly while you are living them. restrospect reveals a lot, however, but our perception of our lives and our experiences are most certainly clouded because emotion becomes part of the equation. what ron said makes perfect sense and made me smile. we have a choice to look at things the way we do. emotion sometimes makes it more difficult to appreciate (i.e. value) what is happening to us. whether things are good or bad, it is usually imo difficult to rationally witness the whole picture when it comes to ourselves...thus misperception. but as ron pointed out, the beauty of it all is we have the choice and the flexibility to look at things from different perspectives or attempt to bring things into focus.

regardless though, i do believe our personal perception is flawed most times. as to how does it limit freedom. well, biologically, automatic processes limit our freedom because we are not afforded the option to choose. i don't have to tell myself to breathe. if it were up to me, some days i'd choose not to. that can both limit my freedom and ensure my freedom i suppose. without my being able to choose, my body offers me another day to live i guess. hmmm am i going backwards now? as far as the mind is concerned, my perception of my life and what i choose to value that's in it limits my freedom as well. there is so much i can do to enrich my body, my mind and my soul that frequently my perception keeps me from. of course, i realise this is my choice whether it feels like one or not. wow, i can't even tell if i'm on topic anymore or not lol.

sorry, this post is a bit longwinded and possibly circumlocutory. my mind's a bit clogged.

I would simply say that the term "value" loses any relevance outside the scope of life. I think value is only a useful term in terms of the potential for willful action. Regarding your opening question above, how far down the biological scale (subjectively) can willful action (even if subconscious) have impact? I'd say the answer is unknown, and potentially "all the way".

I would say that the term "value" loses relevance outside the scope of human thought. Value is a human concept. While we may value our heart beating to keep us alive, the heart itself does not value anything, it cannot. A cell cannot "value" its mitochondria, because it has no conscious of its own. The cell depends on the mitochondria, so of course you could say it "values" it, but really it is just humans saying it is valued.

I love how people suddenly start talking about what I just said... :D
Which was, btw, denied by the thread starter... :rolleyes:

To what end is that point? You can't destroy value without destroying sentience. If sentience exists and has the objective of continuity or longetivity, there will exist value.
nice wes.
...I also heard truthseeker comment on something related. I'll post it!:
Values are absatract concepts that reflect the circumstances which a human being grew up in. They are subjective in nature and guide the given human being to act in a certain way, under certain parameters, when problems arise.

Simple. Where's the discussion?

Thread closed.

which imo, was funny. i've considered him to be funny pretty often... anyway karatie chop an all ...but...
dang. not again. what the hell was i thinking!!! *SMASH*
BTW this is a reply to MY post.

Anyway, ...what is value to a monkey. What is value to a person who for example, has no ability to have value??? The destruction of value, which considers a person being born: we are talking about the person at the moment, and value being that? Sorry i'm confused an all,
all i'm proposing in this post is a response to one of your comments mostly
[just for whoever's reading's info!]

...Actually that idea has long been a great fantastic want to write it down but too scared to, idea that i had. Yup. Sure has. One I think is so great, that makes everything ashame. Like, someone talks, "Oh sucks that the rain forrests aren't gonna live" ... (in different language)... i'm like.. damn... there's some sentience (lol) foryou *laugh haha* ....
They're speaking has no direct point. It has no immediate value, it only attempts to arrive at it.

Simply value isn't just in action, IE, if the thread's title is relevant.. then 'action expresses value' is definately at the very least a confusing statement.

If something is to be done, then do it.
sorry

I'm glad the Truth is entertaining ;)

:D

interesting. since subjectivity is running rampant as only it could due to the use of the word value, i will go on your interpretation of it as utility.

Hmm.. isn't utility subjective too eh?

one thing that has me stuck...breathing, blood clotting, etc are automatic.

Well, they seem that way to various degrees. I'd say it's unknown though, how much control will could potentially have over each. How far does it go? Typically perhaps not far, but could it be because of unrealized choice? Could it be unrefined awareness? I'm not saying it is, but using the point to illustrate that the limit of choice regarding one's personal function(s) is generally ignored. People don't realized they have choice in their actions.

Action is the resultant of choice. What is chosen is the expression of value.

i do not choose for my blood to clot (or not to clot), my body does.

Blood won't clot unless the flow stops. You press down on the wound because you're aware and your survival function expresses the value of limited injury. No? You didn't have to stop the flow of blood. Nothing forced you to press down on the wound to stop the bleeding. YOU forced you.

i can only perform some action to cause myself not to breathe, but naturally without my consent, my body will continue on it's course until i actively make it stop.

I was junk wondering if the ultimate guru act of control might be to suffocate one's self to death by the sheer will of stopping breathing. Hehe. Except for the dying part, it'd be pretty impressive.

Of course, you could prepare a situation in which you wouldn't recover, like drowning or plastic or I dunno, sumthin. I say that because it supports the overall point of value.

If you intended to die via a choice of stopping breathing, you would do it in a manner that would succeed in the task. I'd think it a bad choice, but that's beside the point. Either way, value was expressed in action.

Oh, and you can't consent when you're unconscious, so again.. falls under explanation above.

If you failed, you either failed to value comprehending physics and physiology, or didn't really want to die, but instead desired attention. So you valued death and intended it, but your circumstance (of having failed to value learning to die well enough to perform it) limited the possible outcomes via the clause offered in the OP. Outcomes were constrained by circumstance.

i do see value in such things because i do not have to do much other than eat a merely sufficient amount to stay alive. as an active organism, i don't have to think about it.

And you have at least an indirect method of their control.

as far as utility goes, there is certainly inherent value in the automatic but only until i choose to be aware of such processes (which most people do not do daily). even if value is utility, they are not valueable until i recognize them as such. which segues into perception and circumstance...

If there is something disfunctional about your "automatic" processes, you may not survive to notice. Maybe you will, but if so, you will become aware of them. And then... value will be expressed. If you choose to ignore it, same deal.

your perception of your circumstance is most likely not your circumstance. now, if we break this down to mere biological processes, what you think is occurring is probably vastly different than what is actually occurring. breathing is pretty simple, so it seems. but it is a complex process that i don't think we can fully perceive as it is happening. reading a book about it may help us to grasp breathing (or the process) in general, but how we perceive the goings on within ourselves imo can't be truly understood.
now, to take circumstance outside of the body and into the mind, it is incredibly difficult to see things clearly while you are living them.

I lack the energy to tackle that straight on, and desire your reaction to the above before moving forward with the ideas presented in your second paragraph.

restrospect reveals a lot, however, but our perception of our lives and our experiences are most certainly clouded because emotion becomes part of the equation.

Emotion is always part of the equation. It can also clarify. In fact, I'd consider that its fundamental utility to the person experiencing them. When emotions "cloud things", I think that is also an expression of value.

what ron said makes perfect sense and made me smile.

Me too.

we have a choice to look at things the way we do. emotion sometimes makes it more difficult to appreciate (i.e. value) what is happening to us.

You're missing it I think. If your emotions make things more difficult, that is because you allowed it by your choice. Unless of course you don't think emotions are in the least bit controllable, at least indirectly. Perhaps for instance, it could be that if your emotions are clouding whatever, that is indicative of a poor choice regarding your perception. No?

whether things are good or bad, it is usually imo difficult to rationally witness the whole picture when it comes to ourselves...thus misperception.

Does it have to be misperception? Can perception regarding "the whole picture" be suspended until retrospection can occur? Could that choice be made?

regardless though, i do believe our personal perception is flawed most times.
as to how does it limit freedom. well, biologically, automatic processes limit our freedom because we are not afforded the option to choose.

I disagree. You can choose, even if it's just indirectly.

i don't have to tell myself to breathe. if it were up to me, some days i'd choose not to.

But if you did, you'd seriously limit your circumstantial possibilities, eh? Kind of limits your choices to null. Seems kind of a silly waste, when other choices could be made for fullfillment, etc.

that can both limit my freedom and ensure my freedom i suppose.

You are only as free as your actual circumstance, yeah.

without my being able to choose, my body offers me another day to live i guess. hmmm am i going backwards now?

Hehe, maybe.

as far as the mind is concerned, my perception of my life and what i choose to value that's in it limits my freedom as well.

I guess you have "chosen to value things" of which you are quite unaware. Watch what you do and reflect upon your thoughts and you could see it. You might even see choices that could be changed. But then again, that depends on what you value at the time.

there is so much i can do to enrich my body, my mind and my soul that frequently my perception keeps me from. of course, i realise this is my choice whether it feels like one or not.

Your choice keeps it from you. Oh wait you said that. Lol.

wow, i can't even tell if i'm on topic anymore or not lol.

I can appreciate a loopy rant. It's all topical enough I'd say.

sorry, this post is a bit longwinded and possibly circumlocutory. my mind's a bit clogged.

I can relate.

Anyway, ...what is value to a monkey.

Well, sex, bananas and power from what I've seen. A monkey's choice(s) (both in the moment and 'long range') are quite limited by his lacking capacity to reflect upon abstracts. I can easily imagine crude similarities though.

What is value to a person who for example, has no ability to have value???

Such a thing is impossible. It's clearly discernable through the choices they made, were they to reflect upon it. It can be observed by others and modelled, but without "being them" one cannot say for certain what value was reflected by one's actions. We can sometimes guess pretty well I think though.

You and the obnoxious cunt you quoted both have a problem understanding the term value outside the narrow scope of "morality", apparently.

The destruction of value, which considers a person being born: we are talking about the person at the moment, and value being that? Sorry i'm confused an all,

I just don't understand what you're asking above.

...Actually that idea has long been a great fantastic want to write it down but too scared to, idea that i had. Yup. Sure has. One I think is so great, that makes everything ashame. Like, someone talks, "Oh sucks that the rain forrests aren't gonna live" ... (in different language)... i'm like.. damn... there's some sentience (lol) foryou *laugh haha* ....
They're speaking has no direct point. It has no immediate value, it only attempts to arrive at it.

No, it perfectly expresses what they value at the moment. Think about it. It's probably something other than the rain forests eh?

Simply value isn't just in action, IE, if the thread's title is relevant.. then 'action expresses value' is definately at the very least a confusing statement.

No value isn't just action, action is the expression of value. It's the verb part of it. It's a reflection. It's a perfect impression. Every action is choice, every choice and expression of value. The expression is in your thoughts, and in your physical movement. What you are thinking is "an action". How you move in "an action". Both perfectly express what you, at any moment, chose. Now, you might not have realized you chose it...

... but as the song goes "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

I would say that the term "value" loses relevance outside the scope of human thought. Value is a human concept.

Agreed, but what is the scope of human thought? What is its impact on reality? What, of reality, is subject to choice?

While we may value our heart beating to keep us alive, the heart itself does not value anything, it cannot.

Agreed. But that we value it brings it under the scope of choice. It is particularly so in the case of your heart, as you can make choices about it most readily. You can choose to make it stronger, ignore it, stop it, etc.

A cell cannot "value" its mitochondria, because it has no conscious of its own.

I agree for the most part, but it would take a long conversation to express my slight doubt in this assertion. Regardless, the cell is within your personal scope of choice. I'm not entirely sure that one's mental state is 100% independent of one's cell activity, but that's another thread and I don't intend to argue that the two are directly related... only that there exist the possiblility.

And my "theory of life" skews this a bit, but again, another thread.

The cell depends on the mitochondria, so of course you could say it "values" it, but really it is just humans saying it is valued.

But as the cell is part of the human... where exactly is the line that separates what *it* values from what *you* value?

But as the cell is part of the human... where exactly is the line that separates what *it* values from what *you* value?

Because the cell is an individual that is part of a whole.
Just as the human race cannot be held accountable for the values of Adolph Hitler, because he was an individual among the whole.
Just because all cells in a group behave the same way has no relevance.

You seem to have stimulated a lot of debate! There seems to be some confusion about "value". I thought it might help to define it?
This is what "answers.com (http://www.answers.com/value&r=67)" comes up with:

1) An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
2) Monetary or material worth: the fluctuating value of gold and silver.
3) Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor; utility or merit: the value of an education.
4) A principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable: “The speech was a summons back to the patrician values of restraint and responsibility” (Jonathan Alter).
5) Precise meaning or import, as of a word.
6) Mathematics. An assigned or calculated numerical quantity.
7) Music. The relative duration of a tone or rest.
8) The relative darkness or lightness of a color.
9) Linguistics. The sound quality of a letter or diphthong.
10) One of a series of specified values: issued a stamp of new value

I think (3) and (4) are linked, but I think “value” here is closer to (3).

"Action (down to the level of the smallest motion, breathing, heart beating, etc.) - is the perfect expression of value, as constrained by perceived circumstance and physical reality."

A “dyed-in-the-wool” evolutionary biologist might argue that it is DNA/RNA which decides the “value” of biological actions, e.g. blood clotting, mitochondrial replication etc. not our consciousness (at least until higher up the level of awareness). That would explain the similarity between processes (e.g. anabolic or metabolic processes) in organisms that have widely differing levels of awareness. What do you think?

I suppose a psychologist would disagree - I mentioned Gestalt earlier (ref here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_therapy)). Often it is the expression of intrapsychic conflicts of values or contradictions of expression that are most interesting.

Is a cell conscious? Is it conscious of its own existance?

Because the cell is an individual that is part of a whole.
Just as the human race cannot be held accountable for the values of Adolph Hitler, because he was an individual among the whole.
Just because all cells in a group behave the same way has no relevance.

Adolf Hitler was not part of the whole that comprises YOU.

is my perception of my circumstance actually my circumstance? In what ways does my perception limit my freedom that my actual circumstance does not?

No?

first I' d like to think that everything has a value no matter its utility or totality, even in mathematics the number 0 has a value, only a fool sees no value; a valuable fool, its perplexing but fools have jobs too such as clowns or comics. Value is any expression or action at all, both the seen and unseen. Your perception is a reflection of your circumstance, the mind is only limited by the circumstance so its hard to recount any ways that perception alone hinders your freedom. Think of the mind as "time" and think of circumstances as the gears, needles, and springs that make up the whole "time". As everybody in the world knows by now, time changes in many varing ways and pace according to the time keeper

Adolf Hitler was not part of the whole that comprises YOU.
How do you know? His "dust" might be anywhere in the universe right now! ;)

(Well, with some constraints given the velocity of dust across space, but that's irrelevant here...:D )

How do you know? His "dust" might be anywhere in the universe right now! ;)

(Well, with some constraints given the velocity of dust across space, but that's irrelevant here...:D )

More importantly, he may have been an expression of the zeitgeist, to which we all contribute (or our ancestors did anyway). Nazism was widely supported because the German people felt humiliated, angry and empoverished after defeat in WW1. We did not help by e.g. the French occupation of the Ruhr, the allied demand for reparations and the demand for loan repayments following the Wall street crash etc.

All this helped Hitler into power - we all share a part in whatever goes on.

Yes

Is a cell conscious? Is it conscious of its own existance?

Do you think that WE are conscious of our existence? If we were do you think wed be having this debate? Has anyone defined "reality" yet? We havent scratched the surface of this universe yet, or what it has in store.
Bacteria (cells), which have no brains, still move and survive. Perhaps conscious is relative?

edit: Granted we have much more potential.

Do you think that WE are conscious of our existence? If we were do you think wed be having this debate? Has anyone defined "reality" yet? We havent scratched the surface of this universe yet, or what it has in store.
Bacteria (cells), which have no brains, still move and survive. Perhaps conscious is relative?

edit: Granted we have much more potential.

Bring back Leibniz's Monads! ;)

I would like to throw in again the idea that it is our genes that determine "value" in most of biology, not our consciousness.

Blood clots or cells divide or metabolites are metabolised so that we survive to maximise the passing on of our genes, irrespective of whether we consciously see merit in living. Animal behaviour is most often explained in terms of maximising gene survival e.g. kin selection etc. (Humans may be more complicated!). Can a gene determine "value" if it is not conscious?