I understand but the following is where you lose me completely: First this is not true. Assuming there is such a thing, people are in objective reality. They are part of it. Their perspective on it, is subjective. You seem to miss your subtle altering of the earlier agreement. I made the case that "objective reality (itself) is not a perspective", to which you agreed but then just represented the above statement as the agreed upon matter where you said this is precisely your point: That does not exclude something that exists as part of that which objective from having a perspective. It's basically reflective of the consequence of existing as we do that there would be no way of proving god. Which serves as an interesting metaphor for consciousness itself in my mind at the moment. Makes me wonder if "faith in god" arose evolutionarily as a defense against the pit of despair, which would seem obvious I suppose. (wherein despair is a natural feature of the abstract landscape) Which to me is a rather eronious conclusion that ignores the consequences of having acknowledged that meaning exists. For the 20323409th time, if it exists then it is a reality, part of the universe. That or you're arguing it doesn't exist. Fabricated or not, it exists. Does gasoline not exist? Are you denying me my shoes? Lots of processes lead to lots of resultants. Meaning is a particarly interesting outcome of processes though, indeed. It in fact, is the output that allows the notion of processes and outputs, or any other notion for that matter. Regardless, it is ridiculous to say nothing matters - as saying it contradicts the claim.
Hmm I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, but I think you are describing perspective in itself here. What I meant was: What is the difference between something with a perspective and something without a perspective ? What causes the something with a perspective to have perspective ? Aha ! So you do actually believe that such a 'thing' exists ? The 'thing' being the stuff that causes/allows/whatever perspective.. It was not complete. The word 'reality' is also used to emphasize that you mean that which is real as apposed to something that is perceived. Also, 'universe' then equals 'all of reality'. I don't know how you arrived at that.. :shrug:
It almost seems like you forget all my earlier posts and try to see what I mean post by post.. :shrug: They can only matter on a subjective level, because objective meaning does not exist. They do not not matter to a rock so why would they matter to a pile of cells that can detect outside stimuli ? The same goes for anything that matters (subjectively) to me. Things seem to matter but in reality they do not.
No, it is true. Their bodies are part of objective reality, their ego or perspective is not. Unless you define ego and perspective in terms of the biochemical and electrical processes that they are. It does not exist objectively, only in terms of the biochemical and electrical processes.. for the 20323409th time Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *pulls out hair* Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is something to resolve first.. because think I know where the problem lies.. I think the question I asked you two posts back is of extreme importance for this discussion, or rather your answer to it: "So you do actually believe that such a 'thing' exists ? The 'thing' being the stuff that causes/allows/whatever perspective.."
So of course it's just our respective plays on words. You think "objective meaning" is a valid combination of words. It's the difference between "0" and "indeterminate". You say the term "objective meaning" resolves to zero while I'm maintaining it's indeterminate therefore invalid. you "objective" + "meaning" = "zero meaning" me "objective" + "meaning" = nonsense I find the terms mutually exclusive. "objective" cannot rationally modify the term "meaning".
I thought that was what I said.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Objective meaning is an invalid construct, but I have to use it for lack of anything better.. I really think I have said that before though, oh well.. one misunderstanding down, a zillion to go.. lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Enmos, Wes, I thought I would add a new direction to the debate, follow me if you want – even I wouldn’t claim there is an objective reason to. Taste in Art and Music. Is there ultimately no more meaning in Mozart than the Spice Girls? Sidney Sheldon, objectively speaking, has no more or less value than Shakespeare? Some like one. Some like the other. All the value is subjective. There is nothing overall, better about Shakespeare, Mozart, Tolstoy. Or take someone a little off to the side: Zora Neale Hurston. An excellent novelist. Not well known. A little bit tough to read – it is written in Southern US previous turn of the century Afro-American dialect – and not nearly as popular as Dean Koontz. Are those people who think that her novels are in fact better than Dean Koontz simply wrong? Or are they simply right from their perspective and needs? but only that. Merely that. My guess is both of you will answer that there is no objective value in art. Fine. But approach the question not with my examples, but choose you own favorite band and one that you consider shite. I mean music that you could almost get violent if you had to listen to it. Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that this is all about taste and subjectivity? Or is it something your mental verbal mind has fought hard to make your official doctrine? How can you be sure that that part of you you dismiss as irrational or subjective is not actually on to something universal and profound? That some art purely and simply has greater value, period.
When we talk about something that is essentially Objective meaning or value You both tend to put the onus on what you consider to be the subjective side. The belief in objective meaning or value must prove its case, it is guilty until proven innocent. Oh, you think it has universal meaning or value….prove that. But that is not the situation we find ourselves in, necessarily at least. There is a very strong sense that there is objective value, that some people are shallow, stupid, lazy for thinking that ____________ is good. A part of us screams out that in some cases it is correct. Those people do not get it. Then the mind comes in with its theory and explains in condescending terms that it is all taste. That position. That it is all taste. What if it is that position that needs to justify itself? I don’t think it can. It can make reasoned explanations. But really, since part of the basis of its claim is ‘every perspective is limited’ its perspective is limited. It, at least, clearly, cannot know. It may be wrong to talk the other position out of its perspective. Perhaps that other person is hooked in. Or rather trusts that fact. An argument can be made that we can prove taste cannot be objective because some people must be wrong. But I hope that by wording it that way – in the previous sentence – I have shown you a weakness with that position. Some people can be wrong. Just because it is hard to tell who is wrong, does not mean that some cannot be right.
Correct. Yes they are wrong, objectively speaking the words don't even mean anything. Well yea, from their perspective they are right, to themselves.. Yes. No. It is onto something universal, the universe. And it's doing the best it can.. Greater than what, to who ?
I hope you don't think that we perceive reality as it really is ? By the way, I agree that it might be dangerous to convince people that nothing matters. But that doesn't make it less true..
You made some very confident, absolute statements in response to my other post. It certainly seems like you are quite sure you are perceiving reality as it is. You even seem sure that I cannot be. How did you come to all these strong, unqualified opinions, if you assume you are not perceiving reality as it is_ I don't think I asserted it was dangerous.
So even your assertion, for example, that there is no objective value, has no more value or meaning that assertions to the opposite. Just for me, as a gesture of good will could you list the music you love the most and the music you hate the most. For example, music that improves the universe in general. But let's not get to arguing about this just yet.
No, that's not it.. Shall we just quit this ? It's gotten quite tiresome. No offense though, I appreciate your efforts.
Ok, I don't really have a fav band. I just like a song when I like it. I kinda like most Keane songs though. Yea, I think they come closest. As for music that I hate.. I don't really know that either, sorry.. But I guess most hardcore music would kind of qualify. Uh.. ok... :shrug:
As if reasons can be objective. Pshaw. Hehe. Taste in Art and Music. Is there ultimately no more meaning in Mozart than the Spice Girls? Sidney Sheldon, objectively speaking, has no more or less value than Shakespeare? That depends on who you ask. To my children, such things don't exist. There is more meaning where one finds it, but I'd say it's all really in people's heads, which are actively abstract. Of course they are! Er, well not really but it felt fun to contradict. I think this is mostly true yes - as a consequence of the words used to frame it. However, it seems that certain things seems to resonate with more people, or with different subgroups of people in particular. Now, that someone is "right from their perspective" doesn't mean there isn't a larger system in which one could frame their tastes. Each system one could envision to model such things however, is simply a model. What is important is the utility of the model to each perspective. If a model on a particular issue impedes others that one utilizes to survive in whatever way they think they need to, then generally I think associating it with "truth" generally tends to wane away, as a self-preserving auto-protect circuit, or some variation of that scenario to preserve mental continuity, again as it has come to pass in the specific scenario of the individual in question. too many words, sorry. hopefully you can sort it out. Well I think value can only exist in a mind, so I would argue that it can't exist elsewhere. I find country music generally offensive, yet I love some people who really dig it. That I seriously want to hurl when i hear it doesn't make it more or less valuable to anyone else eh? Yeah, but in a pretty esoteric, systems kind of way. But I think in my heart of hearts, "it" is really all about how we feel. It's a nancy thing to say but in reducing things, I think it relevant - at least to me. The idea seems to work in examples when I think of other people, but could perhaps be framed very differently and also be valid. As if one could tell. I have a view of the mental landscape. I tell what I see. I'm either charismatic, insightful or deluded. Probably some combination of the three really. I don't think I do doctrine, but think I'm clever enough to hide it from myself were I to do so. I keep trying to see if I've tricked me, and use the words I read here in a potentially vain attempt to foil whatever potential ruse I may have set for me. My talent is 'my mental verbal mind". I tested crazy high in the area, to the point that a board of like 12 psychologists (I was testing for ADD to see if I could get money for college) were sort of freaking out at me, they looked sort of nervous as if I was going to destroy them with my mind bullets (tm). I only say this as to clarify that I have little but my "mental verbal mind" to work with. It is me. I feel good when i indulge it, it feels stimulating, interesting and sort of exciting... while drudging and annoying too sometimes I suppose. Regardless, it's what I am. I personally, haven't. I think no matter what it's specific nature it exposes something most profound. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Because I do not indulge my ego to that extent in that manner regarding that issue. My ego says it doesn't work like that because I find a high utility in my perspective on the matter. I'm interested in other views on it though, to see if any contradict mine in its own terms as I see them. More importantly though is that I think it's quite clear that value is not objective. The very notion of it is steeped in the subjective as to say otherwise is to clearly ignore the implicit "to whom", without which the notion is empty. Describe to me the place in which value exists that isn't simply a meaning to a perspective, and I'll be impressed. To me, it requires a "holder". It exists in medium of some sort. It is established and meaningful only in context, and as far as I can tell, only perspectives can create context. Which just means that if what you mean (not necessarily what you say) is relevant to "reality" at all (of maximal utility), it can't be as you put it - at least as I see the words you use to frame it.
Wes, if you agree with me that value cannot be objective and that outside the mind value does not exist.. do you then also agree that anything that is not a produce of the mind has no value. In other words, does not matter ? And why is it that you cut the brain out of reality and put it on the pedestal of the supernatural ? After all, you seem to be forgetting that any part of the brain is not the brain itself, not the whole.. and thus in terms of value no different than some random rock or pebble to the rest of the brain. If you cannot pinpoint the exact place where consciousness takes place, or in fact if there is no such thing as an exact place where consciousness takes place.. how is the brain different from anything else in terms of value ?
Yes. Yes, but that is very different from saying "nothing matters", because something does matter as you just noted - in the specific case of minds - not that is necessarily limited to "minds" just that my own experience has only found it in them. Grrr. I really, really hate the term "supernatural". There is no such thing except in fantasies. I'm telling you what I observe to be true. In reality, there exists meaning as formed by perspectives. You already agree to this but at the same time deny it. It's a fact. Why is it that you insist that "nothing matters" while ignoring that you know stuff matters such that you can maintain that meaning itself must be superstitious nonsense of a supernatural order? I have implied nor said any such thing. What I've said is that it exists, as is obvious by the fact that conversations exist. That your comprehension or rather, expectation of what should be "allowable" in "reality" is contradicted by the notion of meaning indicates clearly to me that your expectations are incorrect, and simply the fact that you can discuss them fully supports the indication. Incorrect. The brain can value itself. As far as I can tell, the rock cannot. Big difference. For you to have made the above assertion as to the status of my memory, you valued things differently than a rock can. Thus, in terms of value it is distinctly different. You are trying to pretend you can project into an objective space and still maintain a perspective, then reporting the results of what you saw. I say that is an invalid activity because as I explained above and you said you'd also said "the terms are mutually exclusive". You employ contradictive combined terms that you admit are as such with the excuse "lack of a better term". Your terms are bogus, yet you apparently think the conclusion you reach is somehow vindicated through them. I cannot pinpoint the location of the molecules in my body at the moment. Were i able to, I couldn't pinpoint the location of the electrons. Your argument ignores that regardless of that we cannot pinpoint it, it exists. Thus, to go forward we have to recognize what is and explain it - when it seems to me you're happier just pretending it's supernatural, bogus shit... to the point that you're willing to use completely contradictive terms to make a point that can't be made with contradictive terms. Either make up some words (preferably reasonably consistent terms that assist in dileneating our dillema) or something to make your point, or consider the possibility that you've goofed in your reasoning by hanging on to nonsense terminology.
Great Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! About it being different for the mind, I'm getting to that. lol I think I hit a nerve there Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yea. But while you agree that the brain is made out of inanimate matter, you somehow feel the need to raise it above all else. Inanimate matter is inanimate matter, no matter how intricate it is. But you seem to subscribe some sort of supernatural quality to it. I don't believe in any supernatural things and I see you don't either.. but what is this undefined quality that raises the brain above it's components ? But the brain can value a rock too, but you say rock don't have value since they are outside the brain. So [in my view] it is only the idea of the rock that the brain values, not the actual rock itself. In the same way the brain can only value the idea of itself [in my view]. Where things get problematic is when you speak of the self, the brain is not the self.. the self is a quality of the brain. The question is can the self value.. ? And what would it mean when something can only value itself, would it mean anything ? Yikes.. I'm sorry (?) :shrug: I didn't mean you personally. They for instance know from what part of the brain your pinky toe is controlled..
It's not "raised". It just is what it is. You can't resist your bogus words eh? Hehe. That the root of consciousness / function that allows meaning is not fully explained doesn't render it "supernatural" except to those who accept that it can' be explained, or isn't worth bothering. It's not undefined at all. The brain somehow creates conditions under which a perspective is formed, and that perspective allows meaning to form. Pretty straightforward. Why exactly it does so is not as straightforward. A rock can be valued by a brain, but as far as I can tell can't itself value anything. I'd agree. Not exactly true, that which it values is part of itself, but the ideas can be "about" other things. You're seriously asking that question? Surely it's rhetorical. It's funny the way you ask it, how it contradicts it's own implication. Why would you ask what something would mean if it doesn't mean anything? Lol. The question cancels itself. Well played. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You don't seem to get that by indulging in communication you implicitely relegate yourself to the utilization and indulgance of meaning, though you seem rather crafty at avoiding the meaning that was intended to be induced! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! lol
