Not at all.
All a person needs in order to establish criteria for utility, is a goal.
Well as I see it there is no goal that isn't a byproduct of value, so value is the basic criteria for utility... *shrug*
Everything is then divided into two groups: That which brings the person closer to the goal, and that which doesn't.
By whom? Why? Is that reflective of what happens in a mind or you just trying to keep classification as simple as possible? What is everything? You mean "all possible decisions"? Goals are dynamic. Evaluations are flawed. Where do these two groups exist? I think I see you're trying to keep it as simple as possible, but in my experience what you've said isn't necessarily reflective of thought at all.
Everything else (including notions of objectivity and subjectivity) is circumstantial.
I beg to differ, in that without a notion of subjectivity - at least as I see it - there is nothing for which it to be circumstantial (to me you've missed an implicit assumption of importance). The fact (as I establish in my own context) that you stated something necessitates you existing independently of me (at least in the statement you made) and subjectively derived (however inspired) your statement. You objectively, subjectively valued it and offered a statement as to it.
If you deny this, it seems to me you invalidate that you made a statement in the first place, which is why I insist that this tangent is relevant. Please bear in mind that to me this is just a fairly straightforward consequence of the assumption of self, and self is assumed as I've repeatedly stated.
I would neither agree nor disagree.
Because you reject the notion of objective/subjective alltogether?
The "objective existence of an individual" is a notion rife with assumptions that have been taken for granted.
Such as?
Assumptions are at least tentatively taken for granted or they aren't assumptions.
The utility established by an individual's value function determines the acceptance or rejection of assumptions.
To me, you're trying to put something that is inherently a subjective cost-benefit analysis in the framework of an absolute... or is that me doing that? Lol. Damnit man, I can't tell!
Here's my logic, perhaps we just start here and you tell me why I'm wrong or what assumptions I've missed.
'i am'
this I assume, but reserve the right to doubt given evidence that compells me to do so.
to me, the above is a different way of saying:
'i exist'.
- since if I am, I must exist.
if however I exist (which I've assumed), there exists a medium of whatever sort in which I do so.
i conclude:
'there is a medium of whatever sort in which i exist'
i accept it, and reserve the right to question it should I find myself compelled to do so.
So:
"I exist in some medium"
I observe: in this medium i seem to have perception.
i further observe: my perception seem to be reflective of the medium in which i exist.
after much experimenting, i conclude there is indeed some relationship that sometimes seems to have some form of structure or prectability. i find that if I stop breathing i experience discomfort, no matter how many times I try it, the result is eventually to breath again. i suspect strongly that if I were able to stop breathing for longer, i may never breath again.
I think it all comes down to economics really.
the thing is: what is the opportunity cost of your skepticism? what experiments can you afford to entertain given your (anyone's) apparently limited time and resources?
the logic above works fantastically for me because at all the places you might reject assumptions, i've found myself compelled to accept them for the sake of my own economy. if you bring up reasons that I find compelling to reject those assumptions, it'd be a done deal.
personally, what is the worst for me is that i cannot fathom that you would not agree that regarding your own ideas - if I've properly communicated myself, such as those you utilize in attempting to rebut me, which ensnares you as performing per my claims of how this all works. if you disagreed I'd probably think you dishonest, perhaps to my own shame. of course i'd never know for sure. *sigh* i may just chalk it up to "he has a different model", but "that he has his own model does nothing but support most of what I was saying". Gawd it's a sticky web.
As such, it is not a good basis to start one's inquiries on or to refer to.
(Philosophers have been struggling with that for millenia.)
Of course, and I'm trying to perform a meta-analysis of their struggles really, and my own - which of course only a fool would attempt.
