In an attempt to describe the thrust of this thread I have written a little story with a deliberately radical point of view.

Tarzan lived in the Jungles of Africa, he didn’t know anything else beyond his favourite trees and the river that ran through his neck of the woods. He had heard wondrous tails of lands far away with exotic persons and foods and devices that defied description. To him life was very simple, intuitive and instinctive in it’s activities.

One day along came Professor Livingston, who startled Tarzan one day while he was basking in the warm sunlight on a rocky outcrop over looking his favourite water fall.
After his first reactions of fear subsided he asked Dr Livingston “why are you white?” Why is your skin white?”
To which Dr Livingston said, “ I am white because that is what light my skin reflects”
“What is Light?” Tarzan queried, already on his way to his first physics degree.
“Light is the stuff that falls to the ground and bounces back in to your eyes” Dr Livingston replied.
Tarzan thought for a moment and said, ”Oh no, that can’t be right the light is were I see it, it can’t be in my eyes!” “You would not fit in my eyes, for my eyes are so small and what I see is so big.”
“But Tarzan the light is not where you see it, your brain just deals only with the light that enters your eye”
“you mean that when I look up at the stars at night they aren’t up there they are only in my eyes?” Tarzan was a quick learner.
“And what’s more the stars aren’t even where you think they are” Dr Livingston continued.
“So Doctor” Tarzan said with tears in his eyes, “you have come into my life and tell me that all I see before me is an illusion, that I think you are there but you are not, that the stars, the sun and the moon are tricks of the light, that there is no truth in what I see and have seen all my life”

“Oh Tarzan,” the doctor went on, “they are surely there but only because your brain says so”
“So my brain tells me where the sun is and where the moon is and not the sun or the moon but only my brain.” “SO do you see what I see?” he asked the Doctor.
“Yes I do Tarzan”. “Oh then we must share the same brain” Tarzan ventured, “for how could two brains see the same thing.
“How could a million brains see the same thing from so many different positions and angles, truly this brain is amazing”
“No”, the Doctor said “we don’t share the same brain”
It was then that Tarzan started to smile and he said dismissing the Doctor with “ Ah now I know that you are crazy, that you think that a million separate brains can some how see the same thing all that information and all that light stuff and that it is pure illusion of what our brains can interpret. You doctor are crazy, now go away and let me live free of your illusion for I know what I see and where I see it, and know that when I shut my eyes at night the universe exists free of my interpretation of it.

So often our need to apply logic over rules what we sense intuitively, When I look around me and consider what I see my intuition tells me that things are where they appear to be, that the light is where it appears to be, intuitively it is what it is, but science has proven or so it seems that what we see is only a brain interpretation . That what we see is an illusion of Neuro-chemistry, that for some amazing reason and miracle of evolutionary design all our brains are hardwired to interpret our senses the same way, in there basic form.
Logic has ruled over intuition

Intuitively we know that our brains can not possibly decipher so much information in real time, so many zillion bits of visual information every second of the waken day, and that’s only visual not to mention all the other sensory information and be able to see virtually what every one else sees, all 6 billion of us.
That when you turn your head your brain has to re-interpret as you move….no this defies logic and good sense.

Why it would be more intuitive and certainly more clever to allow the brain only the need to sense what exists and were it exists, with out the burden of creating a 4 dimensional map of our field of view. Only needing to process anything when we think about what we are looking at.

But alas our logic dictates,

Care to discuss?

BTW I know my story sucks....ok :D

But if you submerge a stick into the water (eg. 50 cm deep) the point of the stick is actually at a different place than where you see it. Therefore the way of logic is more accurate, because if you use the exact(eg. mathematical) positioning to establish the position of the top you put it in the right place, even though you eyes see it at a different place.

Your story is cracking me up!! bravo great job. It is an interesting topic though. I was reading years and years ago Galvin De Becker's book, "the gift of fear". De Becker is a researcher on rapists and volience in the workplace and he has, through numerous interviews with said offenders, reconstructed models or forumulas that they use and published them mostly for woman to read. One of his pet theories, which he pushes really hard is that intuition is the unconcious mind working faster than the conscious mind and processing details that we write off as intuition.

In one example that he had he wrote about a real life rape that happened but changed all the identifing details like location and names of people involved. He reconstructed the story via the woman who came to him after she was raped and from the known mo of that particuar rapist. The story went like this:

She went to her apartment with two full sacks of groceries and the groceries fell down the stairs. Around the corner comes a man saying hey need some help (or something like that cant remember exactly). she declines and he picks up the cat food that fell out and says hey i gotta help we have a hungry cat to feed. To make a long story short he persuades her to let him in just to use the rest room and he rapes her. He than tells her when he is through he will not hurt her but she has to stay in the bedroom while he escapes. For some reason her concious tells her that is not right and she runs out of her apartment to later learn he was heading to the kitchen for a knife to kill her with.

When she tells De Becker the story she is telling him the whole time that things were not right and she didnt feel comfortable with him from the moment he helped her with his groceries.

De Becker threw out a theory that in her subconsious though that was moving too fast for rational thought processed the following info:

1) no door closed before he came around the corner meaning he was lurking not leaving the building like he was pretending to
2) Most to all of his sentences were persuasions to try to get in apt attached to helping her
3) in bedroom there was no motive for her to follow him to door right away meaning escape was not his motive for her to stay in bedroom

Because of her uneasness and fear she couldn't rationalize the thoughts but later, much later after the incident she did.

I can remember as a boy being terrified to swim but not knowing why. Eventually became a very profiecient swimmer but when i was young maybe three, four i was afraid of the water but too young for rational thought as to why. Learned later in life that

1) other kids were afraid and i fed off their fear
2) mother saw a man drown 5 years before i was born and was always edgy about my swim lessons.

does anyone know of any research on this with a link?

But if you submerge a stick into the water (eg. 50 cm deep) the point of the stick is actually at a different place than where you see it. Therefore the way of logic is more accurate, because if you use the exact(eg. mathematical) positioning to establish the position of the top you put it in the right place, even though you eyes see it at a different place.
Procop, I think you are quite correct in saying this.
If I gave Tarzan a bucket of water and a stick and asked him to tell me what he sees when he puts the stick in the water, he would say that he sees something strange about the stick, in that it looks refracted. Intuitive logic could be described as the most commonsense form of logic maybe.
In a way I guess all logic is intuitive. the speed of application probably being a criteria as Robtex has suggested.
So Tarzan sits there with his bucket of water and his stick, how many times does he poke the stick into the water before he understands what he is seeing? And understands that poking his stick into the water doesn't break his stick.?

But in this case Tarzan is dealing with an observation that is quite tangible and quantifiable also harmless in that no threat is occuring.

A bit like showing Tarzan a mirror.... how long would he take to intuitively discover that he is seeing only a reflection of himself?

Gonna take a bit of an odd tack here but....

What if we argue that logic (sic) is contextually embedded in our ontological environment?
So, Tarzan 'operates' quite well in his own familiar surroundings, according to what we've called 'intuition', but what could simply be the 'logic of the jungle' (for lack of a better description). Logic, as we know it, wouldn't work for Tarzan here in the jungle. Now, take him out of the jungle and thrust upon him our logic. Tarzan falters. His 'intuition' surely is still with him, so to speak, and yet he cannot cope, or, must be taught to. Furthermore, from his point of view, we seem to have an 'intuitionistic' skill to operate quite well in the civilized environment.
I don't mean to reduce this down to semantics, but I really do think that our concept of 'logic', as normally used, is much to inflexible. For example, one of the base axioms of Western logic is the Law of non-contradiction which, interstingly enough, is absent from some eastern logics that work quite well at dealing with the same kinds of problems we Westerners do. Even more interesting is the eventual 'watering down' of the Law of non-contradiction in Western logic and the growth of multi-modal logics to deal with certain quantum applications for example.
...I'm rambling now...

Rambling with a clear point though. Here is another illustration of intuition-turned-knowledge. If you have never felt water but are immersed in it blind-folded, the first point of contact is not the visual sense. But after you have been taken out of it & see it you now "know" the feel of water even just by the sight of it. (Observe a baby the instant before it is immersed in water - it seems to know it's bath time yet no-one told it so.)
So easily over looked, but this basic concept is the building blocks of " I can't see it, - I feel it . It feels like water. I see it - It looks like water. It tastes like water - it IS water."
This builds a knowledge surpassing the collection of individual sense data because in any order the water is presented to you thereafter you will be able to ascertain what it is. It is approaching something by many ways leading to one & the same thing - a technique known in all eastern philosophies which is why sometimes there seems to be contradiction to someone who has not had the chance to arrive at a point in a similiar manner. This method aids in approaching something you have not encountered by it's "feel". Even though it's not a "feel" at all - it's actually a database of experience , the only way it can be described is a "feel", etc to someone not familiar with it. This may be the key difference in East\West modes of thought.

It is noted that all Eastern philosophies refrain as much as possible from giving a "formula" for enlightenment, for example;there is no such thing the devotees learn. Only by using all the experiences is this achieved, resulting sometimes in enlightenment being reached by seemingly random ways like observing the flight of a moth etc which to the "logical" mind do not make any "sense" at all.

Glaucon,
Some times rambling is a really good way of allowing other alternative thougths to be expressed an I thought your rambling was really appropriate given the rambling nature of my thread starter.

And also firdroirich you pose interesting points.

Is it worth saying that all logic in some from is intuitive yet some times the intuitive logic looses sight of the original intuition leading to a contradiction between what is originally intuitive and what has eventually been intuited.

I have used the nature of light as an extreme example of how intuitive contradiction can arise. Yet neither Tarzans or Dr Livingstons view point is necessarilly correct.

An example also to do with light can be drawn from the early realisation by Romer [1676] who studied Jupitiors moons and intuitively deduced the velocity of light by comparing the movements of Jupitors Moons against Earth orbit around the sun.

Up until he published his resultant work people all over the world had no notion that light travelled and that as Tarzan felt everything was where it appeared to be. Suddenly peoples view of the universe changed and quite dramatically, what people accepted intuitively was now in conflict with another intuitive position.

Of course since 1676 science has developed and confirmed the Romer predictions and logic.

NOw just as an example of what I mean, imagine that later when Einstien came along with his famous relativity postulates that lights velocity was invariant and since then being fully accepted as sound intuitive logic. We have failed to draw the conclusion that Romer's work of 1676 is now rendered invalid becasue the invariants of light forbids Romers results. So we have a circular contradiction that means that relativity can not exist because Romer's experiments are invalid as per relativity which cancels out relativity in the mean time.

So the premise that light has velocity lead to relativity which invalidates teh premise that light has velocity. so we have a big bum steer so to speak and 330 years of belief down the drain.

So Tarzan sits in his Jungle having a little giggle because he knows that our belief that the brain interprets our environment only is dependent entirely on the velocity of light, and yet at the same time the velocity of light limits our ability to turn our heads and process all that we see simply becasue our neurological speed is way to slow to do the job. So logically we have a circular logic loop that stymmies any growth until uncovered.

I am not sure I am explaining this at all well, how intuition can lead us astray becasue we loose sight of our intuition.....( circular again)

ahhhhhhh, a NON white tarzan.....and i bet the doc was a louser swinger, mover, dancer. too much in his heead. more later......gotta swing

This builds a knowledge surpassing the collection of individual sense data because in any order the water is presented to you thereafter you will be able to ascertain what it is. It is approaching something by many ways leading to one & the same thing - a technique known in all eastern philosophies which is why sometimes there seems to be contradiction to someone who has not had the chance to arrive at a point in a similiar manner. This method aids in approaching something you have not encountered by it's "feel". Even though it's not a "feel" at all - it's actually a database of experience , the only way it can be described is a "feel", etc to someone not familiar with it. This may be the key difference in East\West modes of thought.




Amazing! But wouldn't you say that such attitude (experiencing feelings) is more or less a passive one? (If you compare them, Asia and the West, then the West, building on logic, has succeded in eg. splitting the atom...I do not think that you could gather scientific knowledge by such way..how do then Intuition and logic (co)operate eg. is Intuition echriched by discoveries made by logic?)

tarzan has a suntan....

I am not actually wanting to separate the two, logic is intuitive by nature but sometimes intuition seems not to be logical.

for example 1+1 =2 is quite an intuitive formula and also a very logical one.
one apple plus one apple equals two apples, even our hero Tarzan could work that one out.....intuitive an logical.....

I am not actually wanting to separate the two, logic is intuitive by nature but sometimes intuition seems not to be logical.




If I look at intuition backwards I can see the logic of it.

eg. There was this riddle: A woman has 7 children, half of them are boys. How come?


I was reasoning appr.: that there are two groups of children in her family (3 boys and 3 girls) and one of those kids or doesn't belong to one of these two groups or it belongs to both of them...so I was resonning: the odd child was a hermaphrodite, (no), or it was not born yet, (no), I wanted to give it up but suddenly in a flash I saw it: All these kids were boys!

So reasoning backwards qua logic is easy: The woman has 7 children (boys) thus the half of them is boys. But why coudn't I see this correct and simple logic forwards?

Good example..Procop

Because the word "half" is a suggestive word that in 'common' use would imply differentiation of the genders. So your intuition is conditioned on that basis.

But it is a very valid observation and question.

So often a seemingly logical solution is in fact totally wrong. I suppose if you drew a matrix of algorhythms you could show the logic path and where the wrong assumptions or premises were being made. And I think you'd be surprised just how common this problem is, that is to say mistaken premise.
As I posed earlier as a thought experiment, our entire understanding of the function of the human brain is based on the fact that light enters the eyes. Science can only draw conclusions from this premise, but if light does not enter the eyes the entire approach to this question is changed enormously.

The other thing to consider that when there are many many logical steps it is very easy to go down a path that seems to justify itslef all the way until a point of time you realise that the path would be self justifiable no matter what the steps you took.

This I think is what happens when ever you are working on a problem that is symetrical in it's make up and solution.

The symetry creating teh self justifications and circular logic. But once you stop and ask your self the intuitive question, "Am I wasting my time or not"?" the answer invariably jumps right out at you....

technicians ar probably the heroes for men in modern culture--not by me mind...i am crap at math. i blame it on the stupid abstracy way it was taught me, but i am, so thereeeee...dont care

i see the vaule of ratio-nality. apparently 'rationality" and "reason" are words that came from Greece....their original meanings are "in the right proporation" hence 'ratio" "ration", thus rationality means 'right ratio"

what has happened, is that that way of understanding reality--via ratio...and analysis has become ridiculously predominant, all the way from Plato. so now science is struggling to understand intuitive or subjective consciousness, its 'hard problem'

goin back yo your tarzan story. that doc's view is only PART of the story.....its not the whole. the whole is un 'KNOW' able, because it IS whole. i am not getting all supernatrual here. The MEANING is not in the explantion of twhat the eyes are doing with the brain etc etc, but in that wondrous look at the stars and so on. THAt is the wonder. but knowing that doesn't discount analytical understanding, as long as we see it isn't 'only' or 'really' that

like...

You have two parallel mirrors with a candle in between them. Which mirror has the most reflections of the candle?

and who asking the question?

actually I am not asking a question, I am only showing an example.....

i knew....

......yes, the 'Logos' becomes deified in ancient Greece, by well-to-do male thinker-philosophers, assuming that therer ways of 'working things out' MUST be "him" "up stairs", "God"

then we get life all split up--not that it was JUST ancient Greek philosophers that did this cutting up of bad from good etc, but they formulated it into 'logic-al' theories

yet, what could me more irrational than dividing 'matter' from 'spirit'. 'mind' from 'body' etc?

isn't this just a classical empiricist-rationalist debate? :m:

hotsexyangelprincess, To tell you the truth ...I haven't the slightest idea.....is it? What's empiricist-rationalist mean?

I sat in on a friend's psychology class this summer, and in it was discussed the two hemispheres of the brain. One side of the brain cotrols the scientific, recognition of letters and symbols, logical functions of the brain, while the other side cotrols the religious, pictoral, and intuitive functions of the brain. The primary difference between either side is that one functions in a sequential way, while the other functions in a wholistic way.

This is the main difference between science and religion. Science is a step-by-step process, while religion is wholistic. In science, all the reasons for any given knowledge are known, as each idea is examined individually, analyzed and rationalyzed. However, in Religion, the opposite is true. Most of the reasons for believing a giving thing are unknown, yet the claimants of that knowledge would assert that they KNOW it to be true. This is because the evidence is all considered at once, wholistically, and as a result each individual evidence isn't necessarily known and understood consciously.

This is the primary difference between logic and intuition. One is sequential, while the other is wholistic. Yet, both forms of understanding are recognized as legitimate sources of knowledge. So Tarzan o fthe Jungle does have his own levels of logic, perhaps not as sophisticated or complex as the professor's. Likewise, the professor also has his own levels of intuition, perhaps not as advanced as Tarzan's. Everyone has a mixture of both logical and intuitive forms of knowledge. It's simply a matter of which is more excercized and therefore more advanced.

Thanks for sharing that BTAS, maybe it is worth drawing a distinction between a sort of creationistic logic , [construct our reality] and intuitive, [adapt to our reality] forms of logic.

The professor comes from a background that likes to construct a reality using logic, thinking in terms of postulates and propositions, where as our Tarzan, adapts to his reality and interprets directly his experience,free of constructs. Although it would be true to say that Tarzan also has his logical creations but maybe fewer than Livingston.
In some ways it's a bit like comparing living by the mind and living by the heart.
Acting on what your intellect affords you or acting on what your heart tells you.

Assuming Tarzans life is idealic and of course no ones life really is. Tarzan lives where his heart and mind appear to be more in accord than possibly that of Livingston's although maybe this is a mere flimsy in that we can not tell through a lack of information about both our characters.

It could be fair to say that Tarzan by virtue of his lifestyle has less decisions to make on any given day than our Professor. Tarzans diversity of choice is much less in number but by the same token can a comparison if the two mens happiness be undertaken.
Could it be said that our cities and society is created by force of will over our environment and that by necessity becomes a logical construct guided by intuition that places us "city" humans in a counterintuitive position when compared to the position that of Tarzan's?

Glad I can offer input QQ. Just a couple of things about your last post. I think what you mean is constructive logic versus adaptive logic. It couldn't be called intuitive logic, since intuition is exactly the opposite of logic, and hence, would be contradictory by definition. But yes, that would probably be thr primary difference between the professor's logic and Tarzan's, though I'd argue that both would probably simply be trying to understand the world around them.

I wouldn't say that Tarzan has fewer logical constructs, just less sophisticed. Most of us have an idea of Tarzan as being somewhat stupid, but I would argue that he could be just as intelligent as the professor, but under a different mental framework. However, because Tarzan would not have experienced school, which tends to push more the logical aspect of the mind, and that into the constructs of the societal mentality, he would probably have a more balanced approach to understanding his experiences, both logical and intuitive, which seems to be in line with what you're saying.

Thanks BTAS, and I concurr with the use of constructive and adaptive concepts.
How ever what I was originally wanting to demonstrate with my little story , was how Tarzan and the Professor could be from different worlds or Galaxies when it comes down to POV.

Tarzan might have a degree in "Crystaline Sciences" and find the professors understanding of the nature of light to be quite cute, chick and definitiely misguided. The logic applied to the professors side deemed to have been inferior in it's premise, but not understood as such because of the professors blindness to his own intuition.

Tarzan has provided the professor with an opportunity to se his own logic through the eyes of an intelligent innocent.
"How does such a big universe get constructed inside our tiny little eye balls?"

Is actually a very valid question I feel, and one the professor has stopped asking himslef.

But of course for the professor to accept the question as being a valid one he has to put aside notions about the nature of light, thus his contructive logic can be seen as an obstacle in his pursuit of understanding rather than a facilitator.

yeah BTAS, its actually holistic, and QQ, empiricism is the belief that you must experience something before you can actually do it, and rationalism is the idea that you dont have to experience it, or in some cases, you are born knowing. :m:

Jonas Salk wrote a book, Anatomy of Reality: The Merging of Reason and Intuition. He argues that we need both of those ways of knowing in order to get where we need to go. Said he used intuition to help figure out the polio vaccine. Another thinker on this subject, the philosopher Henri Bergson. Big on the use of intuition as a scientific tool.

Speaking of which does anyone understand what ideas Brouwer and Hilbert were on about?

Of all philosophers I swear mathematical philosophers have the poorest communication skills and the lowest maturity levels...

So often our need to apply logic over rules what we sense intuitively, When I look around me and consider what I see my intuition tells me that things are where they appear to be, that the light is where it appears to be, intuitively it is what it is, but science has proven or so it seems that what we see is only a brain interpretation . That what we see is an illusion of Neuro-chemistry, that for some amazing reason and miracle of evolutionary design all our brains are hardwired to interpret our senses the same way, in there basic form.
Logic has ruled over intuition

Intuitively we know that our brains can not possibly decipher so much information in real time, so many zillion bits of visual information every second of the waken day, and that’s only visual not to mention all the other sensory information and be able to see virtually what every one else sees, all 6 billion of us.
That when you turn your head your brain has to re-interpret as you move….no this defies logic and good sense.

Why it would be more intuitive and certainly more clever to allow the brain only the need to sense what exists and were it exists, with out the burden of creating a 4 dimensional map of our field of view. Only needing to process anything when we think about what we are looking at.

But alas our logic dictates,

I do not like your usage of intuition.
You are using it to mean perception. Not the same.
Would you argue that logic might lead to a faulty conclusion? Properly applied logic is meant to (and should) take one to a proper outcome. If I apply logic, and arrive at a false outcome, you will tell me I had faulty assumptions or premises, or used fallacious reasoning, or made some other error which negated the benefits of logic. IOW, logic which leads to a false conclusion, is not proper logic.

The same is true for intuition.
Properly functioning intuition leads to a correct outcome.
Intuition which leads to a false outcome is not proper intuition.

Intuition is the only method to arrive at objective truth.
Logic and reason approach a situation from the outside, therefore from a particular perspective, therefore has a subjective take on the situation. Subjective paths will lead to subjective truths.
Intuition gets inside the situation, becomes the situation, sees the situation from the inside, free of subjective bias.
So there are two types of problem solving, logic and intuition.
Logic is by the numbers, point A to point B to point C to a logical (hopeful correct) outcome.
Intuition jumps straight from A to outcome.
The scientific method is a wonderful tool of scientists that yields wonderful results, but is just one method of problem solving. It is limited because of the subjective method of inquiry, and the need to proceed by the numbers.

Intuition can not replace logic, any more that logic can replace intuition.
There are times when one will fail, but not the other, and times when both will fail or succeed.

Logic and intuition share some characteristics.
The human mind can use either skill without training.
In rudimentary cases, the mind may use either without realizing it. Undoubtedly early cave dwellers used basic logic for problem solving.
There is benefit in skill training for both methods.

The difference between the two is that logic works better for scientific questions on a routine basis, and intuition only on special cases, whereas intuition, although applicable to scientific issues, works much better for those situations where logic is difficult or impossible. This would include situations where there are too many variables to isolate, and where the variables can not be quantified, or even recognized.

As mentioned, the other difference is that logic yields subjective solutions, intuition yields objective solutions.
Logic only dictates if we allow it. It is not required.

beyondtimeandspace: I wouldn't say that Tarzan has fewer logical constructs, just less sophisticed. Most of us have an idea of Tarzan as being somewhat stupid, but I would argue that he could be just as intelligent as the professor, but under a different mental framework. However, because Tarzan would not have experienced school, which tends to push more the logical aspect of the mind, and that into the constructs of the societal mentality, he would probably have a more balanced approach to understanding his experiences, both logical and intuitive, which seems to be in line with what you're saying.
I happened to have read all of the original Tarzan books (until Burrough’s son took over). There were 24 as I recall, plus a 25th that he started and his son finished.
Tarzan, the son of an English Lord, was quite intelligent. Burrough’s (author) was a racist of sorts, and Tarzan always viewed the local natives as stupid and childlike. But even when the white hunters invaded his domain Tarzan ran circles around them, not only with his fine tuned animal instincts, but his reasoning and intuitive understanding as well.
The Tarzan of the movies if a vague shadow of the Tarzan presented by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

"As mentioned, the other difference is that logic yields subjective solutions, intuition yields objective solutions."

You sure you didn't mean the opposite? I find it odd that one would think intuition beats logic in the objective arena.

"Properly functioning intuition leads to a correct outcome."

By definition, intuitions are assumptions which are not evident. Given that, the rational mind should never take an intuitively derived "conclusion" as objective fact without first applying some sort of evidenciary test (if I have a feeling there's a bogeyman under the bed, I should look before calling the cops). The outcome may be correct, but we are obligated to not treat it as such until verified. Logical conclusions on the other hand are, by definition, guaranteed given the truth of their premises. That's a pretty important distinction when weighing their respective values.

"Logic only dictates if we allow it. It is not required."

Logic doesn't dictate anything; it only defines (descriptive vs prescriptive).

"...for those situations where logic is ... impossible."

No such circumstance.

"Would you argue that logic might lead to a faulty conclusion?"

If the conclusion is false when its premises are assumed true, then the argument in question is not logical.

"What's empiricist-rationalist mean?"

Empiricists are those who believe our senses and experiences are our sole source of knowledge. Rationalists are those who believe that rational thought is our sole source of knowledge. The two (rationality and empiricism) are not necesarilly mutually exclusive. One may be rational and empirical (the sciences, for example, are inherently empyrical but certainly rational). The conflict, however, comes with the reliance on experience: rationalists reject the importance of past experiences, while empiricists embrace it.

BHN: "As mentioned, the other difference is that logic yields subjective solutions, intuition yields objective solutions."
talk2farley: You sure you didn't mean the opposite? I find it odd that one would think intuition beats logic in the objective arena.
Logic can not be objective. It is human reasoning. There is one who reasons, and that which is reasoned. This separation dictates subjectivity. Logic has a goal, a purpose, a path, a subjective viewpoint. This can not be avoided.
Intuition is not guaranteed to be free of this subjectivity, but is capable.
Intuition gets inside the situation, sees it from within, not from outside. As a result of this it is often the case that an intuitive solution applies to this one situation, and can not be generalized as logic can.

BHN: "Properly functioning intuition leads to a correct outcome."

By definition, intuitions are assumptions which are not evident. Given that, the rational mind should never take an intuitively derived "conclusion" as objective fact without first applying some sort of evidenciary test
No, we do not have agreement on what intuition (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=intuition) means.
Intuition means a direct understanding, without the rational (logical) process.
Intuition skips the assumptions and goes directly to understanding.

BHN: "Logic only dictates if we allow it. It is not required."

Logic doesn't dictate anything; it only defines (descriptive vs prescriptive).

I was quoting the OP (original poster) and disagreeing with him.
I would think you would agree with me that we can allow logic to dictate if we choose.

"...for those situations where logic is ... impossible."

No such circumstance.
I see.
Concerning the nature of god (I prefer the eternal, but god has clearer meaning), how is it that logic is an aid?
Concerning those things more “real”, I revert back to my statement that logic (science) is subjective and not capable of objective truth.
Would you care to show how logic arrives at objective truth?

BHN: "Would you argue that logic might lead to a faulty conclusion?"

If the conclusion is false when its premises are assumed true, then the argument in question is not logical.You are of course agreeing with me.

"Logic can not be objective. It is human reasoning. There is one who reasons, and that which is reasoned. This separation dictates subjectivity. Logic has a goal, a purpose, a path, a subjective viewpoint. This can not be avoided."

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "objective." I understand it to mean factual observations about things that actually exist. It does not follow that because epistemic logical reasoning is restricted to the human mind, all logical deductions must be subjective. Hegel defined it as "the Notion as Being" (objective logic) and "the Notion as Notion" (subjective logic). Meaning that objective logic is free from value judgments; the Notion is wholly dependent upon the Object, ignoring the Subject.

"Intuition means a direct understanding, without the rational (logical) process."

You're attaching some undeserved mystical omniscience to the term. Intuition means a PRESUMED understanding in the absence of EVIDENCE (absence of evidence being equivalent to "without logical process"). Whether the understanding is erroneous or not, the presumption is none the less rationally irrelevant, by virtue of it's baselesness.

"I would think you would agree with me that we can allow logic to dictate if we choose."

Dictate what? Logic is nothing more than a set of scientific tools by which we observe and draw conclusions about the universe around us. Logic is informative; it is the universe which dictates.

"Concerning the nature of god (I prefer the eternal, but god has clearer meaning), how is it that logic is an aid?"

Absent a proof for the possibility of divinity, we are obligated to reject the notion. Logic is the means by which we arrive at proofs for the existence of some thing. Thus, concerning the nature of God, logic is not only an aid but a necesity.

"Would you care to show how logic arrives at objective truth?"

Either the apple is green, or it is red. The apple is green. Therefore, it is not red.

How is the not redness of the apple dependent upon the subject?

"You are of course agreeing with me."

At least we can agree on something :)

BHN: "Logic can not be objective. It is human reasoning. There is one who reasons, and that which is reasoned. This separation dictates subjectivity. Logic has a goal, a purpose, a path, a subjective viewpoint. This can not be avoided."

talk2farley: I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "objective." I understand it to mean factual observations about things that actually exist. It does not follow that because epistemic logical reasoning is restricted to the human mind, all logical deductions must be subjective. Hegel defined it as "the Notion as Being" (objective logic) and "the Notion as Notion" (subjective logic). Meaning that objective logic is free from value judgments; the Notion is wholly dependent upon the Object, ignoring the Subject.
By objective I mean separate from the observer. I mean Reality, or Truth which exists separate and independent of the observer.
The problem with your definition is that it makes objective reality just a special kind of subjective reality, not truly objective, just an imitation of objectivity.
An observation can not be truly objective. It can only be a subjective observation which the observer has attempted to clean up by removing known biases. Other observers are bound to disagree and feel the observations are biased.

BHN: "Intuition means a direct understanding, without the rational (logical) process."

You're attaching some undeserved mystical omniscience to the term. Intuition means a PRESUMED understanding in the absence of EVIDENCE (absence of evidence being equivalent to "without logical process"). Whether the understanding is erroneous or not, the presumption is none the less rationally irrelevant, by virtue of it's baselesness.
Well, I guess you didn’t like myhyperlink (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=intuition) to the dictionary definition. There is no “presumed” in my dictionary or my understanding or my usage. You are the one who is changing the meaning of the word. This is the first meaning of intuition from a different dictionary: “the state of being aware of or knowing something without having to discover or perceive it, or the ability to do this.” “KNOWING SOMETHING" has quite a different meaning than presuming something.
Now I have no doubt you may be able to find an obscure use of the word which implies “presumption”, but surely you don’t need to do that to make your point.

BHN: "I would think you would agree with me that we can allow logic to dictate if we choose."

Dictate what? Logic is nothing more than a set of scientific tools by which we observe and draw conclusions about the universe around us. Logic is informative; it is the universe which dictates.
Dictate action. One might choose superstition to dictate their life, or astrology, or religion, or logic. We can allow our emotions to dictate our actions.

BHN: "Concerning the nature of god (I prefer the eternal, but god has clearer meaning), how is it that logic is an aid?"

Absent a proof for the possibility of divinity, we are obligated to reject the notion. Logic is the means by which we arrive at proofs for the existence of some thing. Thus, concerning the nature of God, logic is not only an aid but a necesity.
So you are saying that if I can not prove there is a god, that is proof that there is no god.
You have demonstrated the fallacy of logic in the Non-Sequitur category referred to as denying the antecedent.
This is the form: 1) If A, Then B; 2)Not A, therefore not B.
You say If I have proof for a god, then there is a god [A= proof for god, B = god; If A, then B]
Then you say, I have no proof for god, therefore there is no god. [Not A, therefore not B]
Your argument uses fallacious logic, and is therefore has a fallacious conclusion and is not to be believed.

You demonstrate another unrelated error.
Some Christians try to use the Bible to prove science false.
You use science to try to prove religion false.
I do not see a difference.


BHN: "Would you care to show how logic arrives at objective truth?"

Either the apple is green, or it is red. The apple is green. Therefore, it is not red.
I’m not sure where to begin with this one. Maybe I can explain it to you scientifically.
When you say the apple is green, I know that is proof that it is not green.
An object appears to the observer as green because it reflects all of the wavelengths of light corresponding with green. In other words, it retains (has) all of the light qualities except green, which it reflects back to you. It does not have the color green, it gives up the color green.
You can only tell me how the apple appears to you. You can not (using logic) prove how the apple appears without your observation. You can not prove how I will perceive the apple. Even if I say the apple is red or green, these are merely words. I may not have the same meaning for the words as you do. I may be color blind or have some other optical defect. If I am totally blind, how do you prove to me what color you perceive. If I have no understanding of colors, how can I accept your statements as truth. When you say “the apple is green”, how do you prove you do not have the optical defect? On and on it goes.

How is the not redness of the apple dependent upon the subject?
By subject, I take you to mean the observer. All qualities of the apple exist whether it is observed or not, therefore it is independent of the observer. The apple exists objectively, the observer knows it subjectively.

personally I tend to think that we over emphasise the subjective nature of perception to our detriment.

using the point about how we all seem to view the universee in similar terms and how given that science tells us that it is all a subjective 3 dim. map interpreted from our senses.
how 6 billion people can interpret those 3 dimensions with reasonable commonality using very individual minds and brains. given the enormity of the task i woudl intuitiveley expect to see greater variation in our sense of 3 dimensional space and teh object with in.

So science tells us that our brain is a sensory organ that provides us with a perception generated by interpretation where as i would suggest that the mind and brain present to us a reflection of all that is that we then go on to interpret. Osca's razor would suggest that if we are mentally working with an accurate reflection of our surroundings we do have objectivity available to us in the most economical fashion.

if we as humans were able to suspend our judgement and analysis of what we reflect on we woudl see the universe free of interpretation. Thus the correct way of looking as suggested by Buddhism and like.

Of course to take this poosition is to cry out that scioence has guiled us into believing that what we see is not there but here. And that is our greatest folly in my opinion.

in the Tarzan analogy, tarzan is not convinced that all exists inhis mind he intuitively knows that all exists out side his mind.
He has no indoctrination or obligation to believe that light travles. He has no reason to feel that the universe is a delusion only see'able by himself. He knows that the monkey on the tree experiences something very similar, that common reality exists fro every one. and that if we aer purely interpreters we would fail to function in any cohesive manner at all.

ok the above is an example of intuitive vs logic.

Why should Tarzan dump his intuitive belief for some one elses with out objective evidence to support it. After all Tarzan knows that no one can see light travel and that we can only see it by it's effect.

tell tarzan how 6 billion interpreter brains can come to almost the same interpretation 24/7. An apple with different shades of green is still an apple.....

"By objective I mean separate from the observer. I mean Reality, or Truth which exists separate and independent of the observer."

That is correct.

"The problem with your definition is that it makes objective reality just a special kind of subjective reality, not truly objective, just an imitation of objectivity.
An observation can not be truly objective. It can only be a subjective observation which the observer has attempted to clean up by removing known biases. Other observers are bound to disagree and feel the observations are biased."

If the argument makes no reference to the subject (no bias, in other words), then there is no conflict. That some thing was observed does not necesitate bias. If such a reference may be shown, then you are correct, the apparent objectivity would be illusory. A truly objective deduction may not be logically disagreed with on "difference of observer" grounds. This is what makes it objective. The "not red" apple remains my example.

"There is no “presumed” in my dictionary or my understanding or my usage. You are the one who is changing the meaning of the word."

The problem is, by your own admission, intuition is some claimed truth in the absence of evidence. The laws of rationality tell us that such a claim is presumption, and not to be considered until supported. Whether the dictionary extrapolates this or not is irrelevant. See next point.

"So you are saying that if I can not prove there is a god, that is proof that there is no god."

No, I'm not. If one cannot prove the existence of God, one has not simultaneously proven that God does not exist. Similarly, the rejection of Gods existence absent of evidence in NO WAY implies tacet acceptance of Gods unexistance. Rather, we must reject BOTH notions (Gods existence and Gods lack of existence) until one or the other is supported by sound argument.

"You can not (using logic) prove how the apple appears without your observation."

Of course not. This doesn't make the argument subjective.

"You can not prove how I will perceive the apple."

No, I can't. But how you percieve the apple is wholly irrelevant. All that is relevant is what color the apple actually is.

"Even if I say the apple is red or green, these are merely words."

If language disturbs you, we can proceed in symbolic form. Regardless, one may not argue without establishing sameness of definition. The words are unimportant; it is their meanings which matter.

"If I have no understanding of colors, how can I accept your statements as truth."

The color state of the apple can be conferred in other equivalent manners, if that's your pleasure (light wavelengths, as you pointed out).

"When you say “the apple is green”, how do you prove you do not have the optical defect?"

Again, I can use any number of equivalent means to quantify its color or those things which give it a color state. I may also subject my conclusions to peer review to insure accuracy. If the rate of optical defect in the general population is, say, 3%, then 97% of randomly sampled observers should see the apple as green. If they do not, then there is some error of observation. You're nit-picking.

BHN: "The problem with your definition is that it makes objective reality just a special kind of subjective reality, not truly objective, just an imitation of objectivity.
An observation can not be truly objective. It can only be a subjective observation which the observer has attempted to clean up by removing known biases. Other observers are bound to disagree and feel the observations are biased."

T2F: If the argument makes no reference to the subject (no bias, in other words), then there is no conflict. That some thing was observed does not necesitate bias. If such a reference may be shown, then you are correct, the apparent objectivity would be illusory. A truly objective deduction may not be logically disagreed with on "difference of observer" grounds. This is what makes it objective. The "not red" apple remains my example.
"Would you care to show how logic arrives at objective truth?"
Either the apple is green, or it is red. The apple is green. Therefore, it is not red.
I am confused by your use of the word “subject”. You may mean “observer”, or the “observed”.
Logical statements must involve both observer and observed.

If you mean observer, the subject-observer is the one making the argument. Statements are made. The maker of those statements is the subject-observer. Statements do not exist separate from a maker.

If you mean the observed, the argument must make reference to a subject-observed. The argument (tries) to prove “something”. Now it may be that “something” becomes no-thing, but this simply means the something was replaced, and now the replacement is the subject-observed. There has to be something to determine to what extent the argument is true or fallacious. I’m concerned that you would think it might be possible to have no subject.

The statement “the apple is green” is a subjective statement. The letters g-r-e-e-n are a symbol which represents a particular wavelength of light as it appears to the human eye. You are trying to express a particular characteristic of the apple as it appears to the human eye, to translate the reality of a characteristic of the apple into a human experience, to create in the human mind an approximation of reality. You are not trying to transfer the objective reality of the apple into the mind, just a representation of it, a subjective representation. If you were capable of transferring the objective reality of the apple into the mind, everyone would visualize the same apple, and we both know this will not happen.
It might be that the apple does not even exist. You may be simply using words as symbols and there is no corresponding object we think of as an apple.
In this case we might say: 1) A is R, or A is G. This does not represent any reality beyond the actual marks we call letters. It is not a representation like the letters g-r-e-e-n are. If there is no corresponding reality, then it is the reality itself. Now to say “A is R” is a completely subjective statement. So it is subjective reality, merely a creation of the human mind. It only exists in the mind.
These things are true for “it is red”, “apple is green”, “it is not red”. All of these are subjective statements. A series of subjective statements will not yield an objective truth.

To say the apple is “not red” means you, or someone, made a judgment about the color of the apple. This judgment is subjective. It may or may not be an accurate representation of reality. No matter how sure you are that your information is correct, I will always know that if I saw it, and tested it, I might disagree. The judgment is occurring in the mind of the observer

BHN: "There is no “presumed” in my dictionary or my understanding or my usage. You are the one who is changing the meaning of the word."

T2F: The problem is, by your own admission, intuition is some claimed truth in the absence of evidence. The laws of rationality tell us that such a claim is presumption, and not to be considered until supported. Whether the dictionary extrapolates this or not is irrelevant.

There are two methods of knowing. Logically, and intuitively.
I find this to be a good explanation (http://www.acmsonline.org/Detlefsen87.pdf) for someone who is mathematically inclined.
If you take a few minutes to look it over, you will see that the “laws of rationality” do not apply to the intuitive method.

Aristotle was speaking of intuition when he said: “Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof; the process would go on to infinity, so there would be no proof...”
You can also do some web searches for Henri Bergson, who was an important exponent of Western intuitive thinking.
Most of what I know is from Eastern teachings.


BHN: "So you are saying that if I can not prove there is a god, that is proof that there is no god."

T2F: No, I'm not. If one cannot prove the existence of God, one has not simultaneously proven that God does not exist. Similarly, the rejection of Gods existence absent of evidence in NO WAY implies tacet acceptance of Gods unexistance. Rather, we must reject BOTH notions (Gods existence and Gods lack of existence) until one or the other is supported by sound argument.
I stand corrected. You say logic proves that “God” and “No-god” must equally be rejected. Those who are guided by logic will live their life logically, and therefore will not accept Religion and will not accept Atheism. Agnostic seems to apply here. You feel any scientist who is an atheist is not being logical, and has a false belief. Likewise, any who observe any religion are not acting logically, and are equally false in their beliefs. In all the world, it is only the agnostics who have true beliefs concerning this point of God or No-god.
Have I properly represented your viewpoint?


T2F: If language disturbs you, we can proceed in symbolic form. Regardless, one may not argue without establishing sameness of definition. The words are unimportant; it is their meanings which matter.
Don’t you see that words are symbols, and words are not the same as objective reality. The meaning of words are completely subjective. The have no meaning outside the mind. Words are place holders. Zeros. They only have the meaning the mind puts into them. Two minds can not possibly have the exact same understanding of a particular word. Words are representations of reality, not reality itself. Words and other symbols are always subjective and carry only subjective meaning.

"I am confused by your use of the word “subject”. You may mean “observer”, or the “observed”."

I'm sorry, I should have clarified this. In common language, we often use "subject" and "object" interchangably (that is, we use "subject" to mean "observer" and "observed"). In philosophy, the subject is always the mind or thinking part. The object is the thing being pondered. Ala, "the object of my thought."

"The letters g-r-e-e-n are a symbol which represents a particular wavelength of light as it appears to the human eye."

The evidence does not necesitate the concluison. It begs the question, why does a difference of appearance to a human eye necesitate the subjective nature of all argument? Difference in appearance, by definition, does not imply difference of BEING. I refer you again to Hegel: objective logic is "the Notion as Being." If you can establish that the premises of my argument were based on some personal difference of appearance, then you have shown the argument to be subjective. But you haven't; you've only claimed that I can't really see ANYTHING objectively, and as evidence you continuously allude to such irrelevancies as the symbolic nature of language, optical defects, and so forth. If you must persist in this course, then I will change the argument.

Either a mirror reflects light or it does not reflect light.
A mirror reflects light.

Therefore, a mirror does not not reflect light.

The point here is to show that, yes, green as color is nothing more than a cerebral interpretation of specific light wavelengths. And, yes, some people are color blind. And, yes, some people may have no notion of green at all. But such things are irrelevant. The apple will always reflect light of the "green" wavelength, whether I can see it or not; whether I have knowledge of the color green or not. And that is objective reality. Just as the mirror will always reflect light. I suppose next you'll ask, "what if I was blind?" We could go on all week. These are all irrelevancies. The observation of that reflection has zilch to do with whether the light is actually thus reflected, EVEN IF it has everything to do with my ability to prove it.

To make the point all the more clear, I could move away from a posteriori argument, and towards a priori argument (by definition, argument which does not rely on the senses, freeing you from ceaselessly reminding me that eyesight is subject to imperfections). Consider any argument from mathematics, or any moral/ethical argument (assuming you're not a moral relativist, which then again you probably are...). So, consider any algebraic argument, and explain how it could be anything BUT objective.

"No matter how sure you are that your information is correct, I will always know that if I saw it, and tested it, I might disagree."

Are we discussing deductive and inductive logic, or objective and subjective logic? That the proof of the conclusion is not guaranteed is not an argument for subjectivity. If and only if you are able to, after performing your observations and tests, disagree ON DIFFERENCE OF OBSERVER grounds (as opposed to some other grounds, such as my color blindedness, or the weather that particular day, etc) have you shown the argument to be subjective. That is to say, "all other things being equal, I don't see a green apple," would establish the subjective nature of the argument.

"Aristotle was speaking of intuition when he said: “Some, indeed, demand to have the law proved, but this is because they lack education; for it shows lack of education not to know of what we should require proof, and of what we should not. For it is quite impossible that everything should have a proof; the process would go on to infinity, so there would be no proof...”"

Aristotle was speaking of natural science when he said wood was comprised of base elements earth and fire. Aristotle was wrong about many things. His impact on the modern philosophies is a great deal more spiritual than practical. Plato, a more timelessly correct philosopher, rejected the notion of truth without evidence.

"Don’t you see that words are symbols, and words are not the same as objective reality."

I was being tongue-in-cheek. By symbolic form, I was refering specifically to that branch of logic which abandons language and questions of meaning or accuracy in order to more easily test for validity. Obviously words are symbols. They have some meaning. But sameness of meaning between minds (objective meaning, if you will) is perfectly feasible. If it were not, we could not have argument.

"Have I properly represented your viewpoint?"

Only if we've established that there are no valid proofs for the existence of God, in one direction or the other. You asked only why (or even if) logic could/should be applied to questions of the divine.

It is clear we need to establish a meaning for the term subjective. This term is certainly a hinge point in our discussion.
We have established a meaning for the term “objective”, per this discussion:
~
talk2farley: I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "objective." I understand it to mean factual observations about things that actually exist. It does not follow that because epistemic logical reasoning is restricted to the human mind, all logical deductions must be subjective.

BHN: By objective I mean separate from the observer. I mean Reality, or Truth which exists separate and independent of the observer.

T2F: That is correct.~

You agreed with my statement, which did not address your second statement (“It does not follow that . . .all logical deductions must be subjective.”). I do not agree with this second part as I will explain.

First of all we need to understand that this second part is not necessary for the definition of “objective”. The definition I gave can stand on its own, whether your second statement is true or not. As you say, my statement is correct. We have already agreed on that.
These elements are necessary for a statement or observation to be objective: 1)It is Truth, or Reality, which 2) exists separate and 3)independent of the subject-observer.

Now an easy definition for “Subjective” might be “that which is not objective”. Statements and observations about truth might be subjective, or objective. If we have a statement and we want to test it to see if it is objective or not, we can apply the three criteria to find out. If it is not objective, it is subjective by default.
I will make some marks to see if we can determine if they have objective truth or not.
(A = R) / (A = G) : (A = ~ R) ! (A =G)
These marks have no meaning on their own. They can not be true or false since on their own they have no meaning. Some of them resemble letters of some known alphabets, we could guess that is correct, but cannot be sure of even that, without more information. So really, they have no meaning.
Now it may be that in your mind you try to make sense of them, to see if they have meaning to you. Your mind may even attach meaning to some of them, so you feel they are symbolic of concepts and ideas you are familiar with. If I then add the information “it is an algebraic equation” your mind may add additional information about what you are seeing or experiencing, and even attach the meaning [A equals R or A equals G and given that A does not equal R therefore A equals G]. Now this actual equation (not the marks), which is an expression of truth, is only present in your mind (and the minds of others). The marks themselves are not true or false, they are just marks. Your mind gives them meaning.
These symbols represent a true statement which exists only in the mind.
If it only exists in the mind, it is not separate and independent of the subject-observer, so it has failed two of the three requirements for objectivity.
If it is not objective, it is subjective.

Or we may look at it another way.

Let’s forget about “objective”, and just make an independent definition for subjective.
Certainly a good place to start is the dictionary. It should be able to establish some common ground. We both know dictionary definitions can be misused. In particular I find they are often too brief, and need supplemented. There is a thing called “jargon” where some words have special meaning in particular fields of endeavor. Dictionary definitions often do not do justice to the full meaning of these words, So we will be careful to take the reasonable course of action. If we find fault with the dictionary we will have to have strong evidence to support our position to go against it. If we merely want to supplement, we can follow simple rules of rationality and our suggestions should be acceptable. Let’s see what we can establish.

Meaning of subjective: (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=subjective)
1) [adj] (philosophy) of a mental act; occurring entirely within the mind
2)[adj] taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias; "a subjective judgment

Since we are, by your repeated admissions, having a philosophical discussion, we should be able to use the primary or first definition, which is specifically indicated as being for philosophy.
There is a second definition listed, but this should not hold much interest for us as it is undoubtedly for general or casual usage. It certainly does not have the weight of the primary definition which is specifically identified for philosophy.

As we can see, that which occurs entirely in the mind is subjective.
Our algebraic equation occurs entirely in the mind, and is therefore subjective.
Algebraic statements are subjective.
I have proven it two ways.
Rebuttal?

I am anxious to see how you define “valid proof”.

Could I just add to this discussion the notion that subjectivity is the application of "value" upon an objective observation.

By value I mean anything that is applied to enhance the observation whether it be logic, or other values

Objective observation.
Oxymoron.

"As we can see, that which occurs entirely in the mind is subjective."

This remains the erroneous premise. That the DEDUCTION occurs entirely within the mind does not necesitate that the algebra itself be restructed to within the human mind. That is to say, my determination that 1+1=2 is solely descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Previous to my realization of its equivalence to 2, 1+1 did not equal 3. The laws of mathematics are not bound by our understanding of them; our understandong of the laws of mathematics is bound by those laws. Therefore, the argument is objective.

As evidence in support of my thesis, consider one of the temporarily borrowed laws of economics. When two curerncies are introduced to a market, both with equal denominational values but one with higher intrinsic value, the bad currency will drive the good out of circulation. I have terribly paraphrased the postulate, and regretably can't recall its author, but I do know his name started with a G. So we'll call it "G's Law," from here forward.

In practical action, G's law means that if a gold currency and a highly inflationary paper currency are both in circulation simultaneously, people will hoard the currency with higher intrinsic value (the gold currency), until it is removed from the market altogether and solely the paper remains. The relevant question is, why do people do this? Is it because "G's Law" tells them to? Most certainly not; the gold is hoarded because it retains value, and people are inclined to protect that which has and will keep value. If "G's Law" had never been formulated, the more valuable currency would still be hoarded. Therefore, conclusions must be DESCRIPTIVE (independent of the world which it describes, whether that be the subective or objective realms), rather than PRESCRIPTIVE (mutual dependency between argument and the world it describes).

Ergo, deductions need not be subjective nor objective solely by virtue of their having been deduced.

"1) [adj] (philosophy) of a mental act; occurring entirely within the mind "

This is an inaccurate definition IF it is taken to its logical extreme, making clear the possible source of our disagreement. Deduction in and of itself is NOT argument, nor statement. It can have no truth value nor meaning. It is a process by which conclusions are arrived at. That deduction occurs within the mind is irrelevant to whether or not an argument itself is objective or subjective. Subjective and Objective refer by definition to statements (notions, if you will). I much prefer the definitions employed by Hegel, however amiguous they may be.

"I am anxious to see how you define “valid proof”."

If, given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed, we have a valid proof. If, given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion is more likely than not, we have a strong proof. However, for the sake of convenience, we may use "valid" as a substitute for "strong" so long as we are not being graded. We are then free to use "strength" or "weakness" as in common language to reference the arguments soundness or cogency (are the premises actually true).

Brilliant attempt at Socratean entrapment, by the way. I am impressed.

1) [adj] (philosophy) of a mental act; occurring entirely within the mind "

T2F: This is an inaccurate definition IF it is taken to its logical extreme.
I find it extremely accurate, especially when taken to its logical extreme.
I believe we have reached an impasse.
You disagree with the very essense of a very simple definition.
You are creating your own meaning for words.
An excellent example of very subjective thinking.

"You are creating your own meaning for words."

Hardly. I am referencing the intended meaning. You are extending the dictionary definition to cover a case it neither intended to cover nor anticipated (look up "Accident" next). The dictionary would likely define "free speech" as something along the lines of, "the ability to speak one's mind unrestricted by any law." Does it follow then that I should not be arrested if my words incite a riot?

If not, then the point should be clear: just as it does not follow that all speech is right-protected speech, neither is all thought necesarilly subjective.

" Could I just add to this discussion the notion that subjectivity is the application of 'value' upon an objective observation."

Correct. Did you deduce that yourself? It's almost a word for word, textbook definition. :D

" Could I just add to this discussion the notion that subjectivity is the application of 'value' upon an objective observation."

Correct. Did you deduce that yourself? It's almost a word for word, textbook definition. :D
Ha , actually I have never read a philosophy text book and yes I did arrive at this conclusion in a self derived fashion.

Be it as it may why is this text book definition the subject of dispute?

Why is there confusion about what is meant by that definition? :confused:

"Be it as it may why is this text book definition the subject of dispute?"

It's theoretical.

To further explain: the objective deals with the genesis of an idea centered around some thing, and the elimination of contrary notions until all that remains is the actual object. The subjective deals with the principle of what to do with and how to react to the object, a program of aims and goals (values and judgments). Some reject the notion that the objective (elimination of all contrary notions until the object is known in and of itself) is attainable. Hegel, a rationalist philosopher, held that one could not follow with the subjective without first completing the objective (one cannot exploit what one does not first understand).

What is most curious about Hegel was he held that the spiritual/meantal could be objective (this, for him, was the concept of the Divine, in a more Plantonic rather than Christian sense). The spiritual and mental (as this discussion should hint) have traditionally been thought to necesitate the subjective. Instead, for Hegel, an accurate image of the minds Objects independent of the Subject (the mind itself!) was not only possible, but necesarry in order for the spiritually subjective to proceed (as above). It was from the Objective spirit/mind that we derive moral and ethical absolutes, for example, while the Subjective yields the soul, consciousness, and psychology based on our own judgments and interpretations of the ethical standards.

T2F: You are extending the dictionary definition to cover a case it neither intended to cover nor anticipated (look up "Accident" next).

“accident (http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=Accident)”: [anything that happens by chance without an apparent cause]. You have a problem with this?


The dictionary would likely define "free speech" as something along the lines of, "the ability to speak one's mind unrestricted by any law." Does it follow then that I should not be arrested if my words incite a riot?
“free speech” is a two word phrase, and does not occur in the dictionary as such. The human mind must attach meaning. Again you create meanings and then speak as though they represent reality.

Thought is, by definition, subjective.

the objective deals with the genesis of an idea centered around some thing

First objective is Reality or Truth. Now objective is an idea created in the human mind about some thing. This is a "textbook” meaning of subjective.

so often the arguement circle around the 'ole green apple and how both the apple and it's colour must be subjective interpretations of .........something.

Is it possible to consider that for every person there is both an objective and subjective reality. By this I mean that if a person drops his value assessments etc is he able to witness HIS objective reality, which happens to roughly co-incide with the objective realities of others?

If we assume for the moment that a Global objective reality is impossible to ascertain, that an individual objective reality is able to be ascertained by that individual and that objective reality is similar but not identicle to someone elses objective reality, would this change our approach to this issue of subjective objectivity?
This does remind me of Special relativity BTW...... :)

“individual objective reality” is of course subjective reality.
Individuals act as though their subjective reality is the “individual objective reality” you speak of. Although their view is biased, they act as though it is not.
Often there is mutual agreement that a group of people (scientists, for example) will treat subjective knowledge as objective. As long as there is agreement, there are no problems, within the group at least. When this mutual agreement tries to cross between groups it runs into problems. Thus the debate about what is "real” or “truth” or not (science vs religion for example).
Objective reality exists separate and apart from the human mind.
It is only discernable by the intuitive process.
When the mind tries to grasp it, the fingers of the mind distort it.
With the intuitive process, observer and observed become one.

Herr Hegel of course, would disagree with this.

"“accident”: [anything that happens by chance without an apparent cause]. You have a problem with this?"

I was refering, of course, to the fallacy of "Accident," which is the applying of some general rule to a specific case it was not intended to cover.

"“free speech” is a two word phrase, and does not occur in the dictionary as such. The human mind must attach meaning. Again you create meanings and then speak as though they represent reality."

Whether the concept of free speech is inehrently subjective is irrelevant to the point and a discussion for a later time perhaps. Whether it occurs in the dictionary is irrelevant to the point. If it did, and if the definition as given could be considered accurate, you could (by taking it to its logical extreme) commit the fallacy of Accident by claming that any speech must therefore be "free," ala every thought must therefore be subjective.

"Now objective is an idea created in the human mind about some thing."

The genesis (evolution) of the idea of some thing, specifically by the elimination of contrary notions, yields Reality or Truth (the Object). It is a process; we call that process deduction. I have said this before. Now, I have simply stated it more specifically.

" “individual objective reality” is of course subjective reality."

Correct. THAT is a true oxymoron.

"Objective reality exists separate and apart from the human mind."

Correct. That the mind deduces it's existance does not make the deductions subjective, however. See the proof for the descriptive nature of argument above.

"It is only discernable by the intuitive process."

Ah, so now we are only applying our extreme and accidental definition of "subjective" to RATIONAL processes of the mind, as opposed to the irrational processes of that same mind. Or is it your contention that the intuitive process occurs anywhere but the human mind? You can't pick and choose what your fallacies "prove."

I said before that we had reached an impasse and this latest exchange certainly demonstrates that.

I do not agree that my use of the definition of subjective is a fallacy of accident. You have not provided any support for your claim except to say you are right and I am wrong. I have no more proof for my position so it is a standoff. Our larger differences overshadow this point.
Any time one pushes the envelope for strict usage your claim can be made, but the claim is not always valid.

You are not using intuitive in the philosophical sense, merely in the common “hunch” sense. The foundation of your belief system must refute my claim just as the foundation of my belief system must support it. For each of us our beliefs on this are the result of the system, not the basis of our system. Our position follows from other higher premises that we do not agree on.

You have not shown how you distinguish between objective and subjective, I’m sure by my standards your “objective” is merely my “reliable subjective”. You have a much lower standard than I do. I do not hold with those who say the objective is unknowable, but neither do I agree with your apparent position that the objective truth is readily knowable (rationally) by virtual all persons (though many do not avail themselves of this opportunity).

I have constructed an interesting little proof to show that according to your statements in this thread you are not Agnostic.
The only assumption I had to make was that you made only correct (true) statements in this thread.



BHN: "Concerning the nature of god (I prefer the eternal, but god has clearer meaning), how is it that logic is an aid?"

T2F: Absent a proof for the possibility of divinity, we are obligated to reject the notion. Logic is the means by which we arrive at proofs for the existence of some thing. Thus, concerning the nature of God, logic is not only an aid but a necesity.

BHN: "So you are saying that if I can not prove there is a god, that is proof that there is no god."

T2F: No, I'm not. If one cannot prove the existence of God, one has not simultaneously proven that God does not exist. Similarly, the rejection of Gods existence absent of evidence in NO WAY implies tacet acceptance of Gods unexistance. Rather, we must reject BOTH notions (Gods existence and Gods lack of existence) until one or the other is supported by sound argument.

BHN: I stand corrected.
You say logic proves that “God” and “No-god” must equally be rejected. Those who are guided by logic will live their life logically, and therefore will not accept Religion and will not accept Atheism.
Agnostic seems to apply here. You feel any scientist who is an atheist is not being logical, and has a false belief. Likewise, any who observe any religion are not acting logically, and are equally false in their beliefs.
In all the world, it is only the agnostics who have true beliefs concerning this point of God or No-god.
Have I properly represented your viewpoint?

T2F: Only if we've established that there are no valid proofs for the existence of God, in one direction or the other. You asked only why (or even if) logic could/should be applied to questions of the divine.

BHN: "I am anxious to see how you define “valid proof”."
T2F: [If, given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed, we have a valid proof. If, given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion is more likely than not, we have a strong proof. However, for the sake of convenience, we may use "valid" as a substitute for "strong" so long as we are not being graded. We are then free to use "strength" or "weakness" as in common language to reference the arguments soundness or cogency (are the premises actually true).]~

So we will only know if I described your position as an Agnostic correctly [“only if we’ve establilshed there are no valid proofs] if we can agree there are no valid proofs for or against god.
As I’m sure you are aware, “Only if. . .” is strong language to philosophers such as yourself.
I have only properly represented you as an Agnostic, if we can agree (there is no establishment without agreement) that there is no valid proof for or against god, which as I indicated early on, I would rather describe as the Eternal. I have what I consider acceptable valid proof, using your criteria. Clearly we would disagree on this.
Just as you “know” that logic and reason are the only acceptable sources of proof, I “know” the intuitive is acceptable.
I do not agree with your claim that my understanding of subjective-objective is false. I “know” objective reality is not knowable by rational means.

Since we have not established there are no valid proofs for the existence for the eternal, I did not properly represent your viewpoint as Agnostic. This must mean you are Atheistic or Theistic, but certainly not Agnostic.
~ ~ ~ ~

I consider myself a Jeffersonian Deist, believing in a “prime creator” in the sense that everything in the universe is interconnected. This is merely my subdivision of Zen, which is the basis of all of my beliefs.
I have a belief in the Eternal, and believe that we can become one with the eternal by intuitive experiences. These are direct experiences which do not rely on proofs, words, explanations or the rational. It is a higher level of understanding. It is not a mental process in the traditional sense, therefore not part of the individual mind. It is a mystical experience, not truly supernatural, as I do not believe in the supernatural. It is mystical in the loosest sense. Mystical only in the sense that it can not be truly explained the way logic and reasoning can be. There is nothing supernatural about the Eternal.


If you looked at the “Proof and Intuition” link I provided, I would be interested in why you reject it

"Since we have not established there are no valid proofs for the existence for the eternal, I did not properly represent your viewpoint as Agnostic. This must mean you are Atheistic or Theistic, but certainly not Agnostic."

I wanted to avoid, as much as possible, having to opine on my belief systems, as I don't like what they imply: To the best of my knowledge, there are no valid proofs for the existance of God. There have been many attempts, some extremely good. I have made it a point to pursue as many of these efforts as possible, and analyze them. Unfortunately all fall short.

However, I reject the notion of universal pointlessness. I believe, in the absence of evidence, in some thing that is divine (some higher and purposeful form). Whether that entails a Creator (a God), I rightly admit to not knowing (in that sense I am Agnostic).

I am not entirely without foundation. There has been an argument offered quite recently that supposes the human evolutionary process MAY imply a design (the original argument from design has been rejected as fallacious, but it was far more authoritative in its logic than the new, which only implies a possibility). This new argument is quite young, and still not matured to the point that it could be called a proof. But it shows promise.

The point is, I need to believe in the continuity of identity after death. I just have to; it's a source of emotional stability. I'm just waiting for philosophy to catch up.

"I do not agree that my use of the definition of subjective is a fallacy of accident. You have not provided any support for your claim except to say you are right and I am wrong."

I have demonstrated that, by your definition, the intuitive processes must also be subjective. Given that this does not fit with your stated premises, are we not forced to agree the definition as you have interpreted it is wrong (the alternative being, we're both wrong).

"You are not using intuitive in the philosophical sense, merely in the common “hunch” sense."

I am forced to reject on principle any system that does not rely upon evidenciary (logical) standards. Intuition in any sense is such a system. I am also forced to reject any belief which holds that the Objective is not knowable in and of itself (given the logical processes to be the only means by which we may aquire knowledge, Intuition cannot substitute). As a rational human being, I will endeavor to validate my beliefs with argument.

"If you looked at the “Proof and Intuition” link I provided, I would be interested in why you reject it"

I will read it. May not be able to reply tonight unfortunately, but tomorrow morning for sure (work provides an excellent opportunity to post).

T2F: I am not entirely without foundation. There has been an argument offered quite recently that supposes the human evolutionary process MAY imply a design.
Are you referring to the so called “god-gene”?

T2F: I have demonstrated that, by your definition, the intuitive processes must also be subjective.
Actually, the intuitive process I hold is, by definition, objective. This is based on a chain of premises I can not defend any more than one can defend a particular god. When I defend the intuitive process I try to present in a way that is easy to defend. This requires not revealing my true understanding of the intuitive process. If I admitted to the supernatural my explanation would be easy, but then I would have to defend the supernatural. If I could fully explain the intuitive process, you might say that it is supernatural. I admit the difference is slight.
Even from a secular viewpoint, intuition has been described as the ability for a person’s awareness to enter into the observed, become part of it, understanding from the inside, not the outside. The is the true objective. Human consciousness is left behind, so to speak. As I said, you may consider this supernatural, I do not.

The intuitive process is at the heart of Zen:

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature, one becomes a Buddha.

It is said the Zen that can be described is not Zen. Zen must be experienced. So it is with truth. Reasoning shows that the truth is there, Zen puts the truth here. Again, these are core beliefs which are accepted but not provable by rational means by your standards.


I am forced to reject on principle any system that does not rely upon evidenciary (logical) standards.
I appreciate this.
It is this “evidentiary (logical) standards” that we disagree about.
My friends often comment that I am “too logical”. They do not have a logical reason for making their decision, or worse yet, reject decisions based on very sound arguments, and they do not care. This bothers me. It is particularly difficult when they are family members.

I’m sure that we can agree that simply because an argument is fallacious is not proof that the conclusion is false, only that it has been reached by a fallacious (by logical standards) path.
For example, I believe we accept many things as true when the only argument we can make is an appeal to authority, which is fallacious. News reports come to mind.
I find myself sometimes saying “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be duck” even though I can not prove it is a duck. This would be a lower form of the intuitive.

"Like a falling star, like a bubble in a stream,
Like a flame in the wind, like frost in the sun,
Like a flash of lightning or a passing dream --
So should you understand the world of the ego.”

Your comments on Zen reminded me of a talk that was held at a Buddhist temple I visited in Singapore.

The talk was on the Diamond Sutra, the discourse between the Buddha and Subhuti.
You are no doubt aware of this sutra, Beherenow?

At the time the sutra came to me like a riddle completely paradoxed and yet amazingly precise.

To grasp a meaning is to loose it's value, to grasp a knowledge is to become ignorant of the truth to believe in the "I" is to corrupt the one......Something like that.......It still rattles away in my thoughts even after 15 years and surprisingly makes perfect sense to me.

To feel rather than to think, is the outcome......

Sorry for interupting your facinating discourse with T2F :)

QQ: The talk was on the Diamond Sutra, the discourse between the Buddha and Subhuti.
You are no doubt aware of this sutra, Beherenow?
I’m sorry to say I’m not. I’ve heard of it, but can attach no meaning. I may look it up.
The vocabulary of Buddhism and the concepts they represent require considerable effort. Eastern mind vs. Western mind. My studies have always been on the Zen, drawing on Buddhism only when necessary. I take to heart the admonition of no dependence on words or letters. Dependence and aid are of course two different things. My readings often refer to particular sutras, but I concentrate on the readings rather than the sutras. When I revisit familiar texts I find the sutras become easier.

QQ: At the time the sutra came to me like a riddle completely paradoxed and yet amazingly precise.

To grasp a meaning is to loose it's value, to grasp a knowledge is to become ignorant of the truth to believe in the "I" is to corrupt the one......Something like that.......It still rattles away in my thoughts even after 15 years and surprisingly makes perfect sense to me.
Yes.
Easy for others to deny, impossible to prove, and yet more real than life itself.
Like duendy I find the psychedelic experiences to be so close to this natural experience as to be indistinguishable. A catalyst to jump start the process.

For the Theist-leaning among us:

Intuition: A Special Way of Knowing (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/philosophy/intuitio.htm)
Gregory Koukl
There’s a third way of knowing, though, that needs no such justification: intuition. In fact, this way of knowing is so foundational that justification is impossible. That’s because knowledge by intuition is not gained by following a series of facts or a line of reasoning to a conclusion. Instead, we know intuitional truth simply by the process of introspection and immediate awareness.
When I use the word “intuition,” I mean something specific. I don’t mean female intuition, or a policeman’s hunch, or an experienced stockbroker’s sense that the market is headed for a plunge. Each of these is a type of a specialized insight into a circumstance based on prior experience.
The kind of intuition I have in mind is immediate and direct, what the Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes as “immediate knowledge of the truth of a proposition, where ‘immediate’ means ‘not preceded by inference.’“
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was referring to this kind of knowledge when he wrote, “A truth can come into the mind in two ways, namely as known in itself, and as known through another. What is known in itself is like a principle, and is perceived immediately by the mind....It is a firm and easy quality of mind which sees into principles.”
Philosophers call this kind of knowing “a priori” knowledge (literally, “from what is prior”), knowledge which one has prior to sense experience.

I have found in the past that a good example [extreme] that highlights the subjectiveobjective dilemma is when we attempt to describe or convey teh meaning of absolute nothingness, oblivion, complete unconsciousness etc.

As soon as the mind attempt to engage this issue a value is placed on absolute nothingness and immediately we have created something out of it.

Absolute nothingness can not even be experienced except by default....

Some will contend for example that the NOW is that state of nothingness, by dropping reference to the past and future you are able to exist in between. And of course the duration of in between is zero. but even the sense of being in between nulifies the absolutness of this non-experience.

Just some thoughts :)

there's no such thing as 'absolute' anything....

already in nothingness there is somethingness and vice versa

Ha.....sorry for my smile duendy, but i have absolutely nothing more to say about it....except [chuckles] that you ....errr are ...hmmmm...absolutely correct...uhmmm worng......sheesh!!

It makes my Christian friends think when I say to them:
"If there's really a God that's omnipotent and all, then he/she must be able to know everything, and nothing, since not being able to know nothing would mean God can't know everything. And, this omnipotent being must be able to know nothing and everything at the same time, or at different times, or at the same time AND different times, or neither, or...

It's a Catch-22. It just keeps going in circles because we keep thinking of infinity and anti-infinity as having values.

Still reading the supplied link.

Are you referring to the so called “god-gene”?

The god-gene is one curious element in a litany of observables which suggest a design (the designer remains the subject of debate, one could reasonably argue that these conditionals only insure the survival of the species, and do not necesitate a higher power or purpose). One commonly used analogy refers to the earth, as observed from above. Due principally to the efforts of indepently acting men, the earth as a whole could be said to be moving to a more organized state in the fashion of some living organism (with telecommunications, roads, etc its circulatory system). If we assume that the earth is not a living organism and that evolution is therefore not the designer, then we beg the question, what force or purpose planned this course?

Actually, the intuitive process I hold is, by definition, objective.

As I have said, this seems impossible if we assume the accuracy of the dictionary definition of "subjective," when taken to its logical extreme.

The intuitive process is at the heart of Zen:

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature, one becomes a Buddha.

Such defenses are, by definition, not applicable in that they cannot be proven. The same efforts are made in defense of a multitude of other superstitious beliefs, such as acupunctures. When acupuncture is shown to fail, additional indefensible assumptions are offered (my favorite, some are more in tune to the flows of Zen than others, and thus acupuncture works better for them). If we assume that the ways and means of Zen-like flows are not empirically verifiable, how can we rationally argue such claims?

Under such circumstances, nothing can be proven or disproven. One is free to invent reasonings which, despite or in fact because of their inherent unverifiability, explain away any rational explanation.

I’m sure that we can agree that simply because an argument is fallacious is not proof that the conclusion is false, only that it has been reached by a fallacious (by logical standards) path.

It does not prove that the conclusion is false in and of itself, no. It only proves that the conclusion was arrived at from faulty presumptions, and therefore in the context of the argument, must be false. One might fallaciously deduce a corect conclusion. Consider:

Bricks are red.
The house is made out of bricks.

Therefore, the house is red.

The house may very well be red. However, because we have used fallacious reasoning to derive our conclusion, it is incorrect (or false). If ther house is in fact red, it is not only because the bricks are red. The premises do not imply the conclusion. We must also add that the house wasn't painted or faced, for example.

I find myself sometimes saying “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be duck” even though I can not prove it is a duck. This would be a lower form of the intuitive.

I would disagree. This is an inductive argument. You are saying that given the evidence, the observed Object is probably a duck, but may not be. You haven't arrived at this conclusion intuitively, but logically.

If there's really a God that's omnipotent and all, then he/she must be able to know everything, and nothing, since not being able to know nothing would mean God can't know everything.

Why? I don't see how this follows, nor how this is a circular argument. It would only be circular if you argued that in order for God to know everything, He must know nothing, and in order for God to know nothing, He must know everything. But you haven't; you've said for God to be omniscient (you used omnipotent, but meant omnicient, I'm assumeing) He must know everything, and that therefore He must be able to know nothing. Certainly, one can't "know" without presupposing that one can "not know." However, what relevance does this have to claims one must know and not know simultaneously, or at any other temporal point? That one is able to does not mean one must.

RE BeHereNow's supplied link on ituition vs logic.

The paper only establishes that in order for one to expand upon the established mathematical postulates, one must refer to experience. That is, the known mathematical models cannot be used to derive the unknown mathematical models in and of themselves. However, why is the process of experience and deduction from such experience necesarilly intuitive? Or, is individual experience of some epistemical process necesarry for inference of that process?

I would contend that, once experienced and some explanatory logical rules deduced, a third party (unexperienced) could come by the same knowledge (arrive at the same conclusion) in the absence of direct experience but solely by virtue of his access to the logical rules. This accruement of knowledge would be no less accurate, but not at all intuitive in the context of the paper (which presupposes some correlation between intuition and experience).

Therefore, I would further contend that the original deduction of the postulates was not by virtue of intuition but logical inference. We may have intuitively perceived the existance of some unknown rules, but we established them by logical means, and can validate them without referencing the experienced, or the intuitive.

It is further contended that a proof for the reliability (what the paper calls intuitionistic acceptability) of a logical argument is necesarry for us to assume the accuracy of the arguments deductions. I disagree. A logical argument need not be shown reliable (in the experienced sense), only accurate in its use of logical principles (the accuracy of the argument is dependant upon the accuracy of its use of logical principle). Its reliability may be later derived, but BY VIRTUE OF ITS ACCURACY (as opposed to the other way around). Determinations of accuracy of principle use do not necesitate empirical experience, whereas determinations of reliability (does the argument prove what it claims to in actuality and consistently) may do so.

T2F: I wanted to avoid, as much as possible, having to opine on my belief systems, as I don't like what they imply.
Does this mean you understand the irrationality of your belief system?
(At least within the context of others.)

Does this mean you understand the irrationality of your belief system?
(At least within the context of others.)

Correct. Given that, I refuse to allow my belief system to interfere with the pursuit of knowledge in the observable universe. I reject any and all notions of the miraculous out of hand. There is always a testable, quantifiable explanation.

Anything which presumes its own existance or relies on irrational substantiations is to be avoided.

Correct. Given that, I refuse to allow my belief system to interfere with the pursuit of knowledge in the observable universe. I reject any and all notions of the miraculous out of hand. There is always a testable, quantifiable explanation.

Anything which presumes its own existance or relies on irrational substantiations is to be avoided.

Unfortunately this means that you yourself are to be avoided as you have assumed your own existance....and life does not have to be rational.....

In fact it is illogical to use logic in many situations.....apart from some very basic premises existance has no obligation to conform to the rational. :)
My thoughts only

"Unfortunately this means that you yourself are to be avoided as you have assumed your own existance"

Not in the absence of evidence. Presuming a things existence is a fallacy whereby we assume the truth of our conclusion without proving it. It has a proper name, but that eludes me.

Some points to add:

1. The term "the mind" should not be used casually, as it is a folk conception with no solid meaning (although one could be negotiated).

2. If concepts or "thoughts" are subjective in nature, then so are sensations experienced by the body. This is why: the cells interpret data coming through their membranes (in the form of heat, light, pressure, etc.) and its registering is its significance. Such registering involves the subject (in this case, the cells), and thus is subjective.

3. We have no basis on which to presume separation from that which is apparently "around" us. It appears that way to some extent, and this is functional for us, yet we must also acknowledge that we cannot know any concept or percept apart from our participation.

4. A more plausible hypothesis, therefore, might be that there is ontologically (in some absolute existence) no such thing as "object-subject" separation - in other words, that there is only Subject - BUT that within Subject, there are shifting, partial perspectives that gives us a sense of change and movement. This, in turn, is where we get the notion that there are "objective" things and "objective" relationships. So objectivity is an epistemological ("how we know") function rather than an ontological reality.

5. What follows from this is that nstead of being separate objects floating in an outside matrix or substance, we are windows or perspectives within that substance (although I hesitate to use the term "within" because there would be no inside, because there would be no outside. But anyway...) Our partial but shifting perspectives merge, join, give rise to surprise, discovery, invention, more merger, etc. etc.

6. Each nexus of perspective - from the cellular to the full multicellular organism (what we think of as "you" and "me") - to communities of language and culture - each of these is one of those windows.

7. In this model, we "individuals," as we like to model ourselves, play an important role in the on-going self-creation of the "All-Subject." By using this term, I do not mean to imply that this is "God," but it could be interpreted that way. It is more like pure movement. Why else would this matrix of difference and relationship - the life process of subjective existence, growth, transformation - be, if not because difference = relationship = an ongoing dynamic, or movement - for its own sake?

onefinity as I digest your post I reminded my self of an earlier thought I had regards the notion of an individual objective awareness.

Simply put it can be shown that if we have two persons looking at the same apple and we take all the other variables as a given we must note that by sumply looking at this apple from a different vantage point immediately means that at any moment each persons perpective is unique there fore a global objectivity is impossible as simply no one can see from the others exact perspective.

An extreme example would be looking at a sheet of paper that has two sides of different colours. One person sees green the other sees purple or what ever. Even if looking at the same side each persons view must by virtue of perspective be different. Thus objectivity that can be shared is impossible [in absolutum]
so disregarding "mind" for the moment physically it is also impossible to achieve a shared objective view.

QQ: An extreme example would be looking at a sheet of paper that has two sides of different colours. One person sees green the other sees purple or what ever. Even if looking at the same side each persons view must by virtue of perspective be different. Thus objectivity that can be shared is impossible [in absolutum]
so disregarding "mind" for the moment physically it is also impossible to achieve a shared objective view.

I would say shared objective knowledge (not view, because view implies subjective) is possible by the intuitive, which of course has not been established.

Also, that in some cases objective knowledge (however we define it) might be shared, although in other cases it is not.
This would only be possible if the observer were aware of what part of his knowledge were subjective and what part was objective. One observer can bring another into common objective knowledge.

Complete knowledge is not necessary for objective knowledge.

I am not entirely comfortable with the word knowledge.
To me I use the word awareness as being considerably more objective than any knowledge that we mau come to hold.

To achieve an objective awareness is possible I feel if one can still the speculation and discursivity of our thoughts.

However even awareness is not free from the corrupting influences of thought.

To sit by an ocean and be aware with out thought achieves much towards objective realisations.

Onefinity:
You use many terms I am not familiar with, but I believe I agree with you.
The question I might have is whether you feel all “individual” experiences are objective. Does this interconnectedness give each of us wholeness with reality, or only offer it to us?
You seem to say there is no subjective.
I would say there does not need to be subjective within a particular “individual” existence, but that comparing individual to individual, many have subjective experiences.

QQ:
Yes, your awareness is my understanding.
Knowledge is simply bits of information, understanding connects the dots, makes us aware of the interconnectedness of the bits.

I see the bits (knowledge) closely aligned with subjective, proper awareness or understanding, the objective.

QQ: To sit by an ocean and be aware with out thought achieves much towards objective realisations.

The doctrine of no-mind.
This is where Zen truly butts heads with science and logic.

BeHereNow, I concede your point!



...April Fools! :)

"Simply put it can be shown that if we have two persons looking at the same apple and we take all the other variables as a given we must note that by sumply looking at this apple from a different vantage point immediately means that at any moment each persons perpective is unique there fore a global objectivity is impossible as simply no one can see from the others exact perspective."

You have not, then, accounted for "all the other variables." It is elementary that one must eliminate all contrary notions so as to deduce the objective. Difference of