Intrinsic Value

Ok, but it wasn't my intention to state my views as facts. Maybe I have given the impression but I think I also made clear that my views were debatable.. that's after all why we're here ;)

Yes, that other post was directed at Wes.

But their place is nothing more than meaningless (objectively seen) biochemical reactions taking place in some mass of organic matter

You are missing the point though. Objectively we are the biochemical reactions.

It's hard for me not to take these as statements of facts.

But it was never my issue with you that you were stating facts. It was that you were stating as facts something that your actions and reactions (to me for example) seemed to contradict. In other words when you told me that the subject should (I felt this modal verb was implicit) be respected. Clearly if everything is meaningless and we are simply chemical reactions (AND this means that therefore everything is meaningless) there is certainly no objective reason to do anything or not to do anything.

In a sense I thought you were expressing two objective viewpoints: one ethical and interpersonal and one 'scientific' and they did not mesh for me at all. If you had said: I want you to focus on the subject, well that would be another thing all together.

If science is the arbiter of objectivity, then we cannot have other objectivities also, certainly not ethical ones.
 
that which endures.
decent criteria for intrinsic value?
of course....conservation of energy says all endures in one form or another

ja?
nein?

raises identity through time issues
is it it in its new form?
you could take the take that EVERYTHING continues and has value with all the forms shifting and transforming in its protoplasm (not that this appeals much to me)

and what of the transient (if this applies anywhere)

perhaps not entities, but moments

that time I passed her in the street

does this endure (well, so far)

but if I forget or in changing forms lose the memory

does it endure

and if it doesn't does it lose its value.
 
ah
the teeniest weeniest particle has intrinsic value
ja?
nein?

certaintly - a word choice with great consciousness - anyone who says that all they can experience is their own mind, must - again similarly chosen this word with great consciousness - know that even that tiny particle has intrinsic meaning.

I personally find all portions of my mind have value - even if only in that it is mine - so I assume they must.
 
that which endures.
decent criteria for intrinsic value?
of course....conservation of energy says all endures in one form or another

ja?
nein?

ah
the teeniest weeniest particle has intrinsic value
ja?
nein?

Nein to both.
It's my view that nothing has intrinsic value (as in objective reality). Things only have value to entities that can value, which makes value totally subjective.
 
It's hard for me not to take these as statements of facts.
I was stating how I see things, some things based on science others on my personal insights. Maybe I should have put "I think" in front of it though.

But it was never my issue with you that you were stating facts. It was that you were stating as facts something that your actions and reactions (to me for example) seemed to contradict. In other words when you told me that the subject should (I felt this modal verb was implicit) be respected. Clearly if everything is meaningless and we are simply chemical reactions (AND this means that therefore everything is meaningless) there is certainly no objective reason to do anything or not to do anything.

In a sense I thought you were expressing two objective viewpoints: one ethical and interpersonal and one 'scientific' and they did not mesh for me at all. If you had said: I want you to focus on the subject, well that would be another thing all together.

If science is the arbiter of objectivity, then we cannot have other objectivities also, certainly not ethical ones.
See, you don't get it :p

That there is no value in objective reality doesn't not mean that people act upon it. Objective reality cannot even be described because of that. The 'mind' is a subjective entity, we can only experience filtered reality and base our actions on that.
 
See, you don't get it :p
Sure I do. And people talk about objective values all the time. I am sure since it seemed like you identified yourself as an atheist you recognize when religious people do that. You may not notice that non-believers do this also.

I also pointed earlier, quite clearly, that you have acted on the idea 1) that there is an objective reality 2) that there are no objective meanings 3) that we are 'really' only chemical reactions and therefore devoid of ultimate meaningfulness objectively

by saying that these things are true. This has effects.

Think about telling these things to a child, for example, and I think you will see this is an act. Sure, we are adults and we get used to being defined in a variety of ways. I think we often don't notice how these definitions affect us, especially when they come sporadic, indirect, disorganized and also organized, direct and steady during certain periods.

It also has intra-psychic effects to say this to yourself.

I am not saying that you should not say these things. I am saying that saying things is an act. To present these things as objectivity leaves you open to have other people wondering why you don't integrate this objectivity in your life if you are sure of it or are concerned about not being able to AND to having people point out that saying we are objectively chemical reactions and our choices are therefore meaningless while also clearly having moral standards and suggesting others follow them
is to present 2 objectivities that do not fit together.
 
Sure I do. And people talk about objective values all the time. I am sure since it seemed like you identified yourself as an atheist you recognize when religious people do that. You may not notice that non-believers do this also.

I also pointed earlier, quite clearly, that you have acted on the idea 1) that there is an objective reality 2) that there are no objective meanings 3) that we are 'really' only chemical reactions and therefore devoid of ultimate meaningfulness objectively

by saying that these things are true. This has effects.

Think about telling these things to a child, for example, and I think you will see this is an act. Sure, we are adults and we get used to being defined in a variety of ways. I think we often don't notice how these definitions affect us, especially when they come sporadic, indirect, disorganized and also organized, direct and steady during certain periods.

It also has intra-psychic effects to say this to yourself.

I am not saying that you should not say these things. I am saying that saying things is an act. To present these things as objectivity leaves you open to have other people wondering why you don't integrate this objectivity in your life if you are sure of it or are concerned about not being able to AND to having people point out that saying we are objectively chemical reactions and our choices are therefore meaningless while also clearly having moral standards and suggesting others follow them
is to present 2 objectivities that do not fit together.

I understand that they don't fit together and that it's not wise to act on the idea that there is no objective meaning. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true... Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that these things are true beyond any doubt.. nobody can ever know whether it is true or not.
These things I say reflect how think reality works, it is not fact. However I see no flaws in them.. :shrug:

P.S. You may think you understand exactly what I mean, but your posts tell me otherwise.. :shrug:
 
I understand that they don't fit together and that it's not wise to act on the idea that there is no objective meaning. But that doesn't mean that it isn't true... Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that these things are true beyond any doubt.. nobody can ever know whether it is true or not.

This is quite the absolutist statement!
 
I'm not saying that.

However, I am noting that whichever one would state, whether it be "I know it is true" or whether it be "I know it is not true": as long as the fact of the matter would be that one is not sure either way, consigning oneself to either "I know it is true" or "I know it is not true" one would be consigning oneself to an untruth. Which usually has some negative consequences.
 
Hmm not quite.
That the entity has a point of view suggest there is an objective reality which is imperfectly perceived. This perception is what I call subjective reality.

Imperfectly? That suggest some standard that you've imposed by which it should perform - a standard which is apparently flawed, as what is, is what it is and as such, behaves in the universe perfectly. We impose many standards upon things for sure... agendas... but to you these are utterly meaningless right, so how can you call anything imperfect?

Subjective perspective is something like a pleonasm to me. 'Subjective', to me, means something like 'relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.'

- subject to a perspective and abstraction - sure.

Perception, thus, always is subjective and distinct from the real thing (objective reality).

In other words subjective reality is dependent on objective reality.
Yes but you've contrived objective reality through your perception (specifically noting it as imperfect), as we all have. Thus, your declared dependency is wholly subjective eh?


Without objective reality there is no input to result in subjective reality.

In terms of modeling how stuff works, ok... but in terms of the "reality of what you have to work with", no.... because again you have only your subjective shit to make such observations.

They way I see it: Perception(Objective reality) = Subjective reality.

In terms of a model I don't think that's unreasonable. What's messed up about it is that we are wholly contained by the system we wish to describe. It causes a lot of curious language and difficulty.


Hmm, ok.. I see. Strictly seen, I agree. But I don't think time and space have any impact on the discussion however.

So you forgot about the part where we spoke about "physical reality" (space-time)?

LOL no.. ;)
I put 'designed' between quotes and said that I (unfortunately) had to anthropomorphize objective reality to make the point. (limits of language I guess)

And you admit no contradiction?

Hmm.. we as in "I" or "the Self" is subjective, yes. But I really meant our physical bodies (naturally including all the biochemical processes going on). Think of subjective reality as the image a tv produces. The image itself is nothing more than the result of physical processes.

That would work ok if it weren't for the apparent fact that it's that very image that allows you to realize, discuss and posit comprehension of the tv.

Ok, it seems like you are approaching this a bit 'theistically' ? lol

No.

I say that if subjective really exists then objective reality must exists, or else there wouldn't be any subjective reality.

It would seem to follow sure, but it's imperative to the structure of the argument to note as I keep doing about the fact that the only means y ou have by which to say such things is via that which you find to completely lack objective meaning (when we know 'objective value' to be a null term to begin with).

Yes, but doesn't that apply to every perception ? If you follow that view you can't be sure of anything at all.

That is true, yes. You can however, be quite sure as to your own satisfaction - or not if you choose that as well.

Again, I think you are approaching the concepts of meaning and value as if they are Gods. No offense though, I just see some strong parallels.

That's silly. Meaning and value exist and you are experiencing them now. If you want to call them god then feel free, many people do I think... but I'm not.

That makes no sense to me.. isn't that kind of circular?

If you think it so, perhaps you could demonstrate at least slightly why. I think I explained it further in another post somewhere.

I take you are not a theist, so I don't see why you would say "put yourself in god's position"
?

Because you're claiming knowledge of the objective, which you already agreed is unknowable.

Most of these claim of me are attempts to explain how I see it. It's my conviction that objective reality cannot be described, therefor it's seems as if I'm "putting myself in God's shoes" as you put it.

Well I understand and have a hard time keeping it all straight too. No worries.

Disclaimer: Some of my words might seem 'sharp' None are meant in such a way though. I'm too tired to 'nicefy' my words right now lol ;)

No sweat, I hope you'll allow me the same leeway. I'm too far behind and have heavy posts to tackle, please pardon me if I was at all rude.
 
Thank you ! :D It's not just you ;)
This is my view as well. Objectively, value does not exist.

Let me see if I get you right here.

Value obviously exists no?

There is no "objectively" of which we can speak. Because as soon as you speak (or think it), you've rendered it subjective, follow? I don't think this can be circumvented. Please do tell if you think it can.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
Wouldn't this also hold for assertions of possibility?
wesmorris said:
from which perspective?

Stating something is possible isn't an assertion is it? An assertion is stating a something definate. Stating something is "definately possible" is not an assertion as I see it.

To say something is possible tends to mean that given these conditions and resources and involved entities this or that might happen or be the truth.

Sure, again though - I think that the individual is the authority on their perception - so there's nothing wrong with a tentative statement as such. I don't even think it's wrong to make a statement of full confidence really so long as you realize you're speaking about a model of what you perceive.

To posit possibility isn't one building on certainties of being? (and I'm not sure about this. I just know I have found the idea of possibility strange somehow)

No not necessarily I don't think... it depends on exactly what you mean. I think for instance, it's perfectly legitimate for one to claim certainty in their perception, but epistemologically wrong to claim that perception is necessarily relevant to anything outside itself. There are all kinds of scenarios in which I can see utilitarian objections to that statement... hopefully it will suffice to say that if treated as utility it's put back in terms of perspective and as such, doesn't violate an agnostic epistemological stance.

In other words, yes if there is something bad about to happen to me and you see it, I'd value it if you'd say something rather than ignore it, writing it off as only valid in your own perspective because that's where this whole thing takes you. It would seem that way, but it isn't necessarily so. Consider that instead of "knowing reality", we "know what we percieve of reality" and "how useful that is to the individual" in terms of how people seem to behave.

Someone stating things with certainty can also change later.

Ok they were wrong but couldn't admit it. What does that mean?

Well, let me shift this one: I am thirsty. And there is nothing tentative about this assertion on my part. Have I made an epistemological error in not being tentative? (by necessity that is, not 'in this case')

No, as I've said... you're the authority of your perception. Quench that shit. I have a dew if you need one.

Well absolute statements might be wrong also.

Yeah but well, then they were just stupid and wrong and indicative of as I explained somewhere - unbound ego.

I think what you mean - forgive me - is 'I am putting it forward with the proviso that it might be wrong.'

It's really more about recognizing the limitations of perspective to me. It's not so much about being wrong, but as to what it might apply and the implications regarding the human condition. All statements "might be wrong". It's just recognition and respect for that fact, and interest as to the consequence of being.

But what you are putting forward that might be wrong is the absolute version, not the one involving possibility.

No. It is what I percieve. I have no idea if you can make sense of it, or if it really applies in your life whatsoever, though as I said I'm a tard and would probably argue ... oh shit I'm doing it now .... that all this shit is relevant - at least to me.

It is possible I can teleport into your room.

Not sure about that.

Is it? What makes you think that is possible?

Never percieved it. Theoretically possible maybe.

Well, I just mean I no way of being sure it can't happen.

So it's a possibility. Doesn't work so good if you don't know how to do it. Therefore I wouldn't state "it's possible that I could". I might say "it might someday be possible".

So: there is no way you can determine this. Isn't that an absolute statement? Especially if you assume it also applies to me. If that 'I' is really a covert 'we'."

I'd say there's no way to determine you can't because negatives can't be proven. I'd say however, that I could be quite satisfied that you haven't however.

Anyway, I am exploring here. I am not sure what I've got if anything. I just find that possibility stance somehow as absolute as others, though less likely to make me scared if a bunch of my neighbors adhere to it than some absolute stances.

Myah.

edit: just realized that I find the construction 'I don't know if....' must less troubling than 'It is possible that....'
Or your original: 'or the whole thing could....' and 'there could be no way we would know, ever...' These coulds seem very much like 'is'es to me especially when you are talking about everyone. (I understand that the sentences would be different if the verb was is: what you are sure of would be, in that case, something else.)

Maybe that cuts to the heart of my reaction...

Hopefully I've cleared it up a bit, but perhaps I've just made the waters more murky. Dunno.
 
what the fuck happened to supe?
nirvana? did the universe reveal itself in all its whatnot?

/very impressed
 
Wesmorris said in another thread:

Are you subject to this and can 'what you know' come crashing down?

Yes. From my experience it seems that conceptual structures like that of a mind are dependent upon similar building blocks as building have foundations.

If all of what you believe is tentative can this happen to you?

Sure man. Slip 10 hits of acid into a drink I'm drinking and I'd almost guarantee it.

Would certainty be disruptive for you and cause a kind of rapid traumatic construction?

Lol. what the hell is a "rapid traumatic construction"? can I buy it at wal-mart?

(I am being playful here, but since you said 'everyone' I assumed you included yourself.

I hope I'm included, sure. I wonder what I'd be were I not one in everyone.

But it seems like your tentative believing might ward off the effects of contradiction.

All belief is tentative on proof to its contradiction. If there is no proof however, the tentative part has a lot less "oomph".

If not, why not? If so, does this mean your house actually had a rigid foundation?)

As I've said my analysis is intended to the purpose acknowledgement and attempted comprehension of consequences of elements interacting in a model. A "rigid foundation" is a consequence of being entities that value. In committing even to the tentative acceptance of perception as valuable, over time as our minds solidify those perceptions into our "conceptual inter-relationships". These are the model of "what it is to exist" that we have as a reference or "rigid foundation" on which we base the transform of the moment from potential to historical. If the foundation is in such a form that it dissallows contradiction, the likelyhood thereof and thus "it all coming crashing down" (or whatever i said) being far more remote. Regardless, were "it to come crashing down", the foundation requires "mental work" to reform or I think if a certain threshold is met, the damage is irrepairable.

And a last tangential question: is this some of the motivation for your (tentative) belief system?

No. Perhaps you can see.

that is 'safer'?

Hehe, I bet I'm better at psychoanalysis than you are.

Would you like to play a game?

(sorry obscure movie reference seemed pertinent but probably isn't but entertained me for a second anyway)

And could you have developed a defense - nonetheless potentially correct - for your position after the fact?

Do you think crazy people can tell they're crazy? If I am, I'm one of those who can't. I think this is all simply a matter of excruitiating honesty and an attempt to accept truth (as I can manage to see it). I'm compelled to explore this shit. It fascinates me. For whatever reason I think I'm capable of "getting it", and I try to do so. I love the feeling of discovery I get when I "get something" new.

There's my defense.

Oh and NO... lol, I don't feel "safe" in realizing I can never know a fucking thing... lol. Some could find it disconcerting. Oh so you're saying it's safer than saying "this is how it is"? Lol. No. I see no safety there for me. In fact it'd be a lot easier in some ways to just tell you I know what I'm talking about so fuck off. Then perhaps some rude gestures and yeah baby, I'm the man! WOOT!

Instead I obligate myself to hours of responding to shit other people would find rather dull I'd think.
 
that which endures.
decent criteria for intrinsic value?

no i don't think so, depending on exactly what you mean. are you speakin of the tao, or are you speaking of your perception of what endures?

of course....conservation of energy says all endures in one form or another

makes me think you're speaking of the tao.

ja?
nein?

what endures in the tao?
 
bah
i am done waffling
valuing is bogus and irrelevant
if any here wants to rate stuff, go for it
as far as i am concerned, things just are
i accept at face value, sans judgment

metaphysically speaking of course ;)
 
Back
Top