Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by fess, Nov 13, 2008.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Can the subjective exist without an objective?
Does the fact that we can be subjective not prove the existence of the objective?
If so, then the only question remains is what that objective is... is the objective the... er... object (e.g. a brick) or is the objective merely the internal workings (e.g. the activity in the brain) that lead to the subjective?
We can not prove the existence of the brick, because all observations are subjective. But can we prove the fact of the observation?
I am waffling, and it's not yet 5pm.
Shame on me.
It is odd to refer to the subjective while saying there is no objective. But then I suppose one could argue that given people's saturation with the idea of the objective one must guide them away from it by using the word 'subjective' as a tool.
This would be a subjective description, I assume.
make note of Enmos' assertion that the universe came first.
On your marks, gentlemen.
Should I be bracing myself ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The universe I perceive is populated by lots of beings that seem virtually identical to me.
Based on that, I don't seem to have a special position in it and it seems unlikely that the universe arises from my perception of it, or anyones' for that matter because our consciousness is transient.
It seems much more likely that consciousness arose from an evolving universe.
I'm still lost about how a universe can exist (have properties) without a conscious observer, who is separate from it. How can it change or evolve without properties, and what are properties without a perceiver?
That's more like it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Uh.. it does have properties. The properties don't pop into existence the moment we become aware of them.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I see. The old "Tree falls in woods..." dance. My position on that is, at it's simplest point, prove the tree exists.
As for whether the chicken came before the egg routine, it depends at what point the chicken started becoming a chicken. Chicken=consciousness, universe=egg.
Enmos. I won't debate you on the absurdity of assertion you made about the universe definitively coming first, until you prove that the universe or consciousness can be proven to exist in the first place. Assertions are signs of a brittle mind, be wary of them.
Any property I can think of needs an observer. They all seem to be discriptions or measurements. Mass, speed, color, shape, size ........
Fess-I'd say we are in agreement on this. Properties are assigned. Seemingly off-point, but I'll add it anyway, what is brightness to the blind? I see meaning that pertains to the topic.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hammie, what if you come across a fallen tree in the forest. You do acknowledge that it fell in the past right ?
Are you saying that a brick has no shape when nobody observes it ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Red, rectangular, hard, heavy are all about the relationship with the observer. All those are descriptions and measurements that wouldn't exist without a measurer. What is a brick without these properties? How can the properties exist without someone to assign them? Maybe the brick would exist, bit it lose all its "brickness".
Mass and shape are not relative.
And I think even a case could be made for color and firmness up to a point, as these perceptions have objective causes.
If you can assign a number to a shape or a colour. etc. does that make it relative?
Are numbers relative?
I agree. You're right; people do tend to not think in terms of probabilities but in terms of absolutes. But this is their mistake. Quite simply, it's easier to think in such terms; easier to organize things. Despite this, the fact remains that any scientist worth his or her salt, when pressed, will readily admit that they cannot state anything with certainty, but rather, with such and such a probability of being correct.
You do not have other people's experiences, but you do have experience of other people......
Ah but they do think in probabilities, they just think that they think in absolutes. The various ontologies and/or metaphysics that structure their thought are (for the most part) given to them; people are educated (I would tend to say brainwashed) into thinking in particular ways. This says nothing about what the case may be.
You've just explained my point.
They are erroneously mixing terms. Mis-applying the term 'reality' to mean something beyond which they cannot possibly have experienced.
Personally, I'd say I'm spiritual, as opposed to religious.
"Religious" implies a structural social group, which, in my opinion, is the whole problem with religion...
It depends; a madrassa for instance, might have the sole intent of brainwashing/indoctrinating pupils.
At school, they didn't tell me it was going to be a lot of stuff I wasn't particularly interested in. At uni, they did tell me, and the rest of the newbies that at least 50% of what we needed to know, would be 'uninteresting', so tough bikkies. You have to generate your own level of interest, not in the subject matter as such, but interest in 'learning' very much as such.
I haven't generally ever been grateful that I missed out on learning/'getting brainwashed into' some thing or other (except perhaps economics).
I'm not sure of what relevance this is.. your point ?
Separate names with a comma.