Objective truth - from a Buddhist perspective #01

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Quantum Quack, Dec 21, 2008.

  1. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Why would anyone be immune to the effect of running into a tree? Why would they run into a tree?

    All this would tell someone who did it is "experience requires action on my part"; then "the experience is because of action by external things, if I deny my part in the experience".
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    so there is objective truth
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Well, yes, subjectively there is such a thing, but objects can't know this.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    objects know this from experience
     
  8. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    A tree knows from experience, that there is an objective reality?
     
  9. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    See? You are not being internally consistent, dude. If you believed your own nonsense, you would know that you can't rely on anything you "see", which involves light reaching your eyes from outside of yourself. You are limited only to what you "think" you see. Your above quote should reflect this by being: "The only source is what I think".

    This is why I have a hard time taking you seriously. (among others)
     
  10. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Why would I know that? How would I figure out that my nonsense means I can't rely on anything?

    But what I see, is what I think it is, isn't it? And I don't mean "what the words I invent are", you don't have to think in words to think (or do you?).

    You mean I shouldn't think about what I see, or I shouldn't think about seeing?

    Can you explain your nonsense, or how it's different to my nonsense?

    Why don't you take me seriously? Or, why don't you not take me seriously? Why do you think you should, or otherwise?
    I mean, I don't take anyone seriously; not you, not anyone at this forum, nor anyone I know including myself.

    On reflection, you're right about that statement I made. I should include the other things that I consider to be 'sources'. It should really say: "The only source is: what I see and hear, and taste and smell, and feel, and think about it."

    P.S. Oh yeah, "anything you "see", which involves light reaching your eyes from outside of yourself", doesn't make sense, unless you deny a subjective reality and assert an external world outside of yourself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2009
  11. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    Wrong. What makes no sense is denying the ability to trust anything you sense from outside yourself, and then stating that you only trust the things you think and "see". If you admit that you "see" things, rather than stating that you have images which form in your brain, but which might not reflect reality outside of your perimeter, then you are being internally inconsistent.

    And the reason I can not take your reasoning or logic seriously is because you can not "see" what I am talking about.

    This is my last attempt at helping you out with this. If your next post is the same nonsense that has destroyed this thread over the past few pages, I will not be responding to you again. This is not out of anger or annoyance, I'm just too busy to waste my time with someone who will not take at least half the time understanding my points as I spend making them.
     
  12. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    Why do you think it means denying the ability to trust anything?

    If you think that, then you wouldn't trust what you thought? You would have to deny that you can think as well?
    If you see things, why do you need to admit this?

    Why are you choosing to see things that aren't there?
     
  13. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    "If you deny a subjective reality and assert an objective one, which 'might not reflect the objective reality', you are indeed being inconsistent".

    But we do this constantly, we assert our subjective stance, to deny an objective one.
    Then we assert an objective stance to deny a subjective one. This isn't inconsistent, the inconsistent part is thinking that your objective stance "might not reflect the external reality you are asserting".

    But since this is exactly what we do - we test our objective assertions don't we - then the inconsistency is in fact entirely consistent with both a subjective and an objective frame
    We do this inconsistent part by comparing notes, by communicating.
     
  14. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    I don't understand the words you are using by the way that you are using them.

    Objective/Subjective claims are a different discussion from Objective/Subjective reality. I can make the claim "Blue is my favorite color", and this claim can be both Objective and Subjective at the same time, depending on what information you take from the declaration. It is an Objective Truth that blue is my favorite color, but which color I choose to be my favorite is entirely Subjective.

    None of this has any bearing on this thread. This thread is whether or not there is an Objective Reality beyond our Subjective experiences, and whether or not we can know or approximate this reality. ALL of our experiences are Subjective in this conversation. My argument is that every single one of our Subjective experiences arise from an interaction with an Objective Reality. Even our hallucinations and the mistakes made by our sensory modules arise due to physical faults, chemical imbalances, sleep deprivation, or some other physical reality that is Objective, that is--existing whether or not we observe or are aware of them.

    I hope that clears up my view of the thread and discussion, because you seem to be quoting me and arguing something that I do not find it fruitful to even discuss.
     
  15. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,674
    So, you mean you deny my objective reality, there is no communication?
     
  16. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    yes because the tree does adapt to the enviroment in which the tree is in

    certain seeds by trees , and their release into the enviroment are based on forest fires

    interesting is it not
     
  17. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    You do not have an Objective Reality. There is only one Objective Reality, and we all have our own Subjective experience and understanding of it. There is communication because your typing becomes part of the Objective Reality that we can all Subjectively experience, and vice-versa. Your typing also generated small pockets of heat, as the kinetic energy of the keys on your keyboard were slammed down. Those bits of heat, very tiny, also became a part of our Objective Reality, even though none of us, not even you, were able to sense them. We all affect the Objective Reality, which effects some of our Subjective Realities.
     
  18. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    Here's my opinion.

    .............
    Ok. Done.
     
  19. disease Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    OK, say I accept this, and believe I have no objective reason to accept an external world. My subjective reality then denies any objective one, OK?
    But, I have no objective reality...?
    But I can't believe this, because there is no reason to.
    Are these very tiny parts of objective reality (that I have no reason to believe actually exists), something I have to accept, unless I have no reason to?
    This objective reality is something I have to accept, it does affect my subective reality even though I have no way to determine if it exists?

    'sigh'
     
  20. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    You do realize all of the objections you raise to objective reality apply to subjective reality as well?
     
  21. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    disease doesn't even know what the words he is using means. So... I doubt it.
     
  22. dysplasia Banned Banned

    Messages:
    21
    That's quite funny, you do realize the post you seem to be responding to, is arguing from a subjective stance about objective reality?
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,528
    so my eyes are shut and I am touching the tree is the tree there as an objective object or is my sense of touch deluded...can I put my hand through the tree with out touching it...?

    Swivels arguement is spurious at best... [ he has me on iggy because he can't stand the heat so ....]

    Is the sense of touch and external sense? yes I would say. Is it subjective that the object is touchable as I touch it? Nope I would say.

    Why focus only on eye sight when talking about objective reality? [hmmmm....good question]
     

Share This Page