Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Subjectivism Versus Objectivism

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2015 7:19:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a misnomer, at least from my understanding, to believe the idea of subjectivism means there are no wrong ideas. This I believe can't be further from the truth. Subjectivism does not hold all truths are universal or all things are true for all people. In fact, that's the teaching of objectivism.

Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower; in other words, something remains true regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's true.

On the other hand, subjectivism does not teach truth is independent of one's beliefs. In other words, if I believe something is true, then, for me, it is true. Now, it may indeed be true for me and false for you. Subjectivists do not have a problem with that; objectivists on the other hand do.

Personally, I am neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist but both. I believe the truth is both personal and universal.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2015 11:44:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are subjective truths and objective truths. Subjective truths may appose another subjective truth but never an objective truth. For instance it might be day where you are and it might be night for someone on the other side of the world. The objective truth is that it is both day and night depending on where you are. Thus opposing subjective views can both support a objective truth.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 11:21:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are subjective truths and objective truths. Subjective truths may appose another subjective truth but never an objective truth. For instance it might be day where you are and it might be night for someone on the other side of the world. The objective truth is that it is both day and night depending on where you are. Thus opposing subjective views can both support a objective truth.

Subjective truths do oppose objective truths, in fact, more oft' than not.

The truth is both: it's day and night. This is true both objectively and subjectively, objectively in that the truth transcends the individual and subjectively in that it is relative to the individual.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2015 11:38:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
wrong. Subjectively is your view only. Day/night is just an example because you are aware of the objective truth. If you are only aware of your subjective view., ie its day, not night.
And not aware that it could be night elsewhere. That is a subjective truth.

At 4/28/2015 11:21:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
There are subjective truths and objective truths. Subjective truths may appose another subjective truth but never an objective truth. For instance it might be day where you are and it might be night for someone on the other side of the world. The objective truth is that it is both day and night depending on where you are. Thus opposing subjective views can both support a objective truth.


Subjective truths do oppose objective truths, in fact, more oft' than not.

The truth is both: it's day and night. This is true both objectively and subjectively, objectively in that the truth transcends the individual and subjectively in that it is relative to the individual.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 7:57:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/28/2015 11:21:57 PM, s-anthony wrote:
There are subjective truths and objective truths. Subjective truths may appose another subjective truth but never an objective truth. For instance it might be day where you are and it might be night for someone on the other side of the world. The objective truth is that it is both day and night depending on where you are. Thus opposing subjective views can both support a objective truth.


Subjective truths do oppose objective truths, in fact, more oft' than not.

The truth is both: it's day and night. This is true both objectively and subjectively, objectively in that the truth transcends the individual and subjectively in that it is relative to the individual.

And water is both warm and cold, right?
I mean, it is cold in the artic circle, but warm in the community pool.

An, but a particular sample of water, can only be one or the other, but not both. So it is with nighttime and daylight. In a particular location, one or the other, not both.

If I say it is daytime, and it is, if you want to make the claim that is a subjective opinion, I would ask you to show why it is not objectively true. I doubt you could do that, although with some unusual belief systems it would be true.

Individuals strive to hold objective views of the world, and will generally claim they do.
When two individuals hold differing views, both claiming to be objective, we can be sure one or more is not correct, given common core beliefs.
Objectivity and subjectivity are based on core beliefs.
If two individuals have very different core beliefs, there will be little agreement on what is objectively or subjectively true.

On some issues nearly everyone agrees.
Value judgments, such as which fish tastes best, which flower is the prettiest, which color is the most pleasing, are generally recognized to be subjective.

Which soccer team is best?
Well, some will say there is an objective answer to that question, and they will explain what 'best' means, according to their subjective viewpoint, and then demonstrate what soccer team is objectively the best.
A case of begging the question.

More importantly, Objectivism is generally recognized in philosophical discussions as the philosophy espoused by Atheist Ayn Rand, specifically in regard to moral values.
It does not have to be, but that is the norm.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2015 10:24:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
wrong. Subjectively is your view only. Day/night is just an example because you are aware of the objective truth. If you are only aware of your subjective view., ie its day, not night.

And not aware that it could be night elsewhere. That is a subjective truth.

Subjective truth is the view of all finite beings. However, that which is subjective to us is seen by us as being objective. For example, for most of our species' history, we believed the earth was flat. We had no concept of it being day on one side of the world while night on the other. So, even though our knowledge of the world was subjective, to us, it was objective. We have "objective truths", today, tomorrow, we may define as being subjective.

One person's or group's objective truths may be another's subjective truths. Or, better said, one person's facts may be another person's opinions.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2015 5:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 7:19:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It's a misnomer, at least from my understanding, to believe the idea of subjectivism means there are no wrong ideas. This I believe can't be further from the truth. Subjectivism does not hold all truths are universal or all things are true for all people. In fact, that's the teaching of objectivism.

Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower; in other words, something remains true regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's true.

On the other hand, subjectivism does not teach truth is independent of one's beliefs. In other words, if I believe something is true, then, for me, it is true. Now, it may indeed be true for me and false for you. Subjectivists do not have a problem with that; objectivists on the other hand do.

Personally, I am neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist but both. I believe the truth is both personal and universal.

What about "Objectivity is a subjective notion".................
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 12:09:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
And water is both warm and cold, right?

I mean, it is cold in the artic circle, but warm in the community pool.

An, but a particular sample of water, can only be one or the other, but not both. So it is with nighttime and daylight. In a particular location, one or the other, not both.

Water is hot and cold all at once. A person living in Alaska may find the summers in Alaska relatively warmer than someone living in a tropical climate. Likewise, a person living in Southern Florida may define a temperature of fifty degrees as being cold while someone from Massachusetts may think it's comfortable.

If I say it is daytime, and it is, if you want to make the claim that is a subjective opinion, I would ask you to show why it is not objectively true. I doubt you could do that, although with some unusual belief systems it would be true.

I believe it is both subjective in that it is a truth relative to those living on the earth facing the sun at that time and it's objective in that it transcends those individuals. If the statement were absolutely true (meaning universally), then, anyone could make such a statement regardless of his, or her, location on Earth.

Individuals strive to hold objective views of the world, and will generally claim they do.
When two individuals hold differing views, both claiming to be objective, we can be sure one or more is not correct, given common core beliefs.
Objectivity and subjectivity are based on core beliefs.
If two individuals have very different core beliefs, there will be little agreement on what is objectively or subjectively true.

If a truth does not transcend the individual, meaning the individual alone holds the belief, being the truth is completely partial, or relative, to the individual, it is unverifiable by the collective. This does not mean one's personal beliefs are false. Being subjective is not equivalent to being false. Being subjective simply means being relative, or partial, to a person or group. Now, any person or group that has beliefs (and, they all do) is going to believe its beliefs are true (or it would not believe them). In order for one to convince another his, or her, beliefs are objective, the individual must be able to demonstrate that in which he, or she, believes. In other words, truth remains subjective until it has been objectified by the believer.

On some issues nearly everyone agrees.
Value judgments, such as which fish tastes best, which flower is the prettiest, which color is the most pleasing, are generally recognized to be subjective.

Which soccer team is best?
Well, some will say there is an objective answer to that question, and they will explain what 'best' means, according to their subjective viewpoint, and then demonstrate what soccer team is objectively the best.
A case of begging the question.

These are seen as subjective, or partial, because tastes or preferences tend toward disagreement. However, objective truths, like, "The sun is shining," are experienced by a greater number of people. Objectivity is based on empiricism, and the greater the number of experiences of a thing, the greater its objectivity. A truth that has little agreement is not completely subjective but subjective to a greater degree; a truth that has much agreement is not completely objective but objective to a greater degree. Every truth has some partiality or there would be no disagreement. Likewise, every truth tends toward wholeness or it would remain completely disagreeable.

More importantly, Objectivism is generally recognized in philosophical discussions as the philosophy espoused by Atheist Ayn Rand, specifically in regard to moral values.
It does not have to be, but that is the norm.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 5:14:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 12:09:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
And water is both warm and cold, right?

I mean, it is cold in the artic circle, but warm in the community pool.


An, but a particular sample of water, can only be one or the other, but not both. So it is with nighttime and daylight. In a particular location, one or the other, not both.

Water is hot and cold all at once. A person living in Alaska may find the summers in Alaska relatively warmer than someone living in a tropical climate. Likewise, a person living in Southern Florida may define a temperature of fifty degrees as being cold while someone from Massachusetts may think it's comfortable.

If I say it is daytime, and it is, if you want to make the claim that is a subjective opinion, I would ask you to show why it is not objectively true. I doubt you could do that, although with some unusual belief systems it would be true.

I believe it is both subjective in that it is a truth relative to those living on the earth facing the sun at that time and it's objective in that it transcends those individuals. If the statement were absolutely true (meaning universally), then, anyone could make such a statement regardless of his, or her, location on Earth.

It is subjective because the terms 'hot' and 'cold' are relative terms, and are not absolutes (objective).
There is nothing objective about the term 'hot' water.

Individuals strive to hold objective views of the world, and will generally claim they do.
When two individuals hold differing views, both claiming to be objective, we can be sure one or more is not correct, given common core beliefs.
Objectivity and subjectivity are based on core beliefs.
If two individuals have very different core beliefs, there will be little agreement on what is objectively or subjectively true.

If a truth does not transcend the individual, meaning the individual alone holds the belief, being the truth is completely partial, or relative, to the individual, it is unverifiable by the collective. This does not mean one's personal beliefs are false. Being subjective is not equivalent to being false. Being subjective simply means being relative, or partial, to a person or group. Now, any person or group that has beliefs (and, they all do) is going to believe its beliefs are true (or it would not believe them). In order for one to convince another his, or her, beliefs are objective, the individual must be able to demonstrate that in which he, or she, believes. In other words, truth remains subjective until it has been objectified by the believer.

"It is this 'one to convince another' that gives me pause.
Is objective truth then a popularity contest?
If I can convince my full group of ten that such and such is true, is it then objectively true?
And what if I am the only one who believes the earth is round, and not a single living soul can be persuaded this is so, does that make their belief objective, and mine subjective?

On some issues nearly everyone agrees.
Value judgments, such as which fish tastes best, which flower is the prettiest, which color is the most pleasing, are generally recognized to be subjective.

Which soccer team is best?
Well, some will say there is an objective answer to that question, and they will explain what 'best' means, according to their subjective viewpoint, and then demonstrate what soccer team is objectively the best.
A case of begging the question.

These are seen as subjective, or partial, because tastes or preferences tend toward disagreement. However, objective truths, like, "The sun is shining," are experienced by a greater number of people. Objectivity is based on empiricism, and the greater the number of experiences of a thing, the greater its objectivity. A truth that has little agreement is not completely subjective but subjective to a greater degree; a truth that has much agreement is not completely objective but objective to a greater degree. Every truth has some partiality or there would be no disagreement. Likewise, every truth tends toward wholeness or it would remain completely disagreeable.

Ah so objective truth is a popularity contest.
Interesting.

More importantly, Objectivism is generally recognized in philosophical discussions as the philosophy espoused by Atheist Ayn Rand, specifically in regard to moral values.
It does not have to be, but that is the norm.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 7:48:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 5:14:20 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/1/2015 12:09:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
And water is both warm and cold, right?

I mean, it is cold in the artic circle, but warm in the community pool.


An, but a particular sample of water, can only be one or the other, but not both. So it is with nighttime and daylight. In a particular location, one or the other, not both.

Water is hot and cold all at once. A person living in Alaska may find the summers in Alaska relatively warmer than someone living in a tropical climate. Likewise, a person living in Southern Florida may define a temperature of fifty degrees as being cold while someone from Massachusetts may think it's comfortable.

If I say it is daytime, and it is, if you want to make the claim that is a subjective opinion, I would ask you to show why it is not objectively true. I doubt you could do that, although with some unusual belief systems it would be true.

I believe it is both subjective in that it is a truth relative to those living on the earth facing the sun at that time and it's objective in that it transcends those individuals. If the statement were absolutely true (meaning universally), then, anyone could make such a statement regardless of his, or her, location on Earth.

It is subjective because the terms 'hot' and 'cold' are relative terms, and are not absolutes (objective).
There is nothing objective about the term 'hot' water.

I'm making reference to the phenomena of day and night, not hot water.


Individuals strive to hold objective views of the world, and will generally claim they do.
When two individuals hold differing views, both claiming to be objective, we can be sure one or more is not correct, given common core beliefs.
Objectivity and subjectivity are based on core beliefs.
If two individuals have very different core beliefs, there will be little agreement on what is objectively or subjectively true.

If a truth does not transcend the individual, meaning the individual alone holds the belief, being the truth is completely partial, or relative, to the individual, it is unverifiable by the collective. This does not mean one's personal beliefs are false. Being subjective is not equivalent to being false. Being subjective simply means being relative, or partial, to a person or group. Now, any person or group that has beliefs (and, they all do) is going to believe its beliefs are true (or it would not believe them). In order for one to convince another his, or her, beliefs are objective, the individual must be able to demonstrate that in which he, or she, believes. In other words, truth remains subjective until it has been objectified by the believer.

"It is this 'one to convince another' that gives me pause.
Is objective truth then a popularity contest?
If I can convince my full group of ten that such and such is true, is it then objectively true?
And what if I am the only one who believes the earth is round, and not a single living soul can be persuaded this is so, does that make their belief objective, and mine subjective?

In science, objectivity is based on predictability; and, predictability is based on repeatability. The greater the statistical findings for the experience of a certain phenomenon, the greater objectivity these findings are said to have. For example, billions of people everyday experience the rising of the sun; so, the sun's rising has great objectivity. However, very few, if any, have witnessed a virgin birth; so, the virgin birth has little objectivity. Notice, I did not say, "no objectivity"; it has objectivity to the degree it has been experienced. This does not bring into question the possibility of any claim but, only, its probability. If you alone experience a phenomenon, then, for you, alone, is it objective.


On some issues nearly everyone agrees.
Value judgments, such as which fish tastes best, which flower is the prettiest, which color is the most pleasing, are generally recognized to be subjective.

Which soccer team is best?
Well, some will say there is an objective answer to that question, and they will explain what 'best' means, according to their subjective viewpoint, and then demonstrate what soccer team is objectively the best.
A case of begging the question.

These are seen as subjective, or partial, because tastes or preferences tend toward disagreement. However, objective truths, like, "The sun is shining," are experienced by a greater number of people. Objectivity is based on empiricism, and the greater the number of experiences of a thing, the greater its objectivity. A truth that has little agreement is not completely subjective but subjective to a greater degree; a truth that has much agreement is not completely objective but objective to a greater degree. Every truth has some partiality or there would be no disagreement. Likewise, every truth tends toward wholeness or it would remain completely disagreeable.

Ah so objective truth is a popularity contest.
Interesting.

More importantly, Objectivism is generally recognized in philosophical discussions as the philosophy espoused by Atheist Ayn Rand, specifically in regard to moral values.
It does not have to be, but that is the norm.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 8:36:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 7:48:54 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/1/2015 5:14:20 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/1/2015 12:09:21 AM, s-anthony wrote:
And water is both warm and cold, right?

I mean, it is cold in the artic circle, but warm in the community pool.


An, but a particular sample of water, can only be one or the other, but not both. So it is with nighttime and daylight. In a particular location, one or the other, not both.

Water is hot and cold all at once. A person living in Alaska may find the summers in Alaska relatively warmer than someone living in a tropical climate. Likewise, a person living in Southern Florida may define a temperature of fifty degrees as being cold while someone from Massachusetts may think it's comfortable.

If I say it is daytime, and it is, if you want to make the claim that is a subjective opinion, I would ask you to show why it is not objectively true. I doubt you could do that, although with some unusual belief systems it would be true.

I believe it is both subjective in that it is a truth relative to those living on the earth facing the sun at that time and it's objective in that it transcends those individuals. If the statement were absolutely true (meaning universally), then, anyone could make such a statement regardless of his, or her, location on Earth.

It is subjective because the terms 'hot' and 'cold' are relative terms, and are not absolutes (objective).
There is nothing objective about the term 'hot' water.

I'm making reference to the phenomena of day and night, not hot water.

Here are your words: "Water is hot and cold all at once. "
So?????


Individuals strive to hold objective views of the world, and will generally claim they do.
When two individuals hold differing views, both claiming to be objective, we can be sure one or more is not correct, given common core beliefs.
Objectivity and subjectivity are based on core beliefs.
If two individuals have very different core beliefs, there will be little agreement on what is objectively or subjectively true.

If a truth does not transcend the individual, meaning the individual alone holds the belief, being the truth is completely partial, or relative, to the individual, it is unverifiable by the collective. This does not mean one's personal beliefs are false. Being subjective is not equivalent to being false. Being subjective simply means being relative, or partial, to a person or group. Now, any person or group that has beliefs (and, they all do) is going to believe its beliefs are true (or it would not believe them). In order for one to convince another his, or her, beliefs are objective, the individual must be able to demonstrate that in which he, or she, believes. In other words, truth remains subjective until it has been objectified by the believer.

"It is this 'one to convince another' that gives me pause.
Is objective truth then a popularity contest?
If I can convince my full group of ten that such and such is true, is it then objectively true?
And what if I am the only one who believes the earth is round, and not a single living soul can be persuaded this is so, does that make their belief objective, and mine subjective?

In science, objectivity is based on predictability; and, predictability is based on repeatability. The greater the statistical findings for the experience of a certain phenomenon, the greater objectivity these findings are said to have. For example, billions of people everyday experience the rising of the sun; so, the sun's rising has great objectivity. However, very few, if any, have witnessed a virgin birth; so, the virgin birth has little objectivity. Notice, I did not say, "no objectivity"; it has objectivity to the degree it has been experienced. This does not bring into question the possibility of any claim but, only, its probability. If you alone experience a phenomenon, then, for you, alone, is it objective.

So, something can be just a little bit objective, or a whole lot objective?
We are discussing two subjects, and I have having problems understanding how you differentiate between them, if at all.
For that matter, your general use of the related terms [objective, objectivism, objectivity] is confusing.

We have:
Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower; in other words, something remains true regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's true.

objectively in that the truth transcends the individual
We have "objective truths", today, tomorrow, we may define as being subjective.

In order for one to convince another his, or her, beliefs are objective, the individual must be able to demonstrate that in which he, or she, believes. In other words, truth remains subjective until it has been objectified by the believer.


It seems to me in some cases you mean an external, objective truth, and sometimes you mean the recognition of that objective truth, such beliefs being considered 'objective', even if they are not external to the human mind.
These are very different things. One is actuality, one is perception.

"In science, objectivity is based on predictability; and, predictability is based on repeatability. The greater the statistical findings for the experience of a certain phenomenon, the greater objectivity these findings are said to have."
So here you mean perception.
In science, objectivity is not actuality, it is perception.
Science perceives something has a high probability of being objectively true, so without being 100% convinced, only 99%, or 85%, etc, it recognizes something as being objectively true.
Thus, it perceives objectivity in degrees of probability.
This differs considerably from your objectively in that the truth transcends the individual .

Scientific objectivity does not transcend the human mind, it is deeply embedded in the human mind.

This is demonstrated with the case of rogue waves, that I discuss here
http://www.debate.org...
and here
http://www.debate.org...

The objective truth, external to the human mind, was that rogue waves were a fairly common event.
The scientific objective truth, was that such events had a probability of one in ten thousand years. This was based on observable, tested with computer models, according to physics and math as understood, beliefs, which happened to be mistaken.

I believe you point out these differences in 'objective truth', and 'scientific objective truth'.

Are we in agreement?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2015 10:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, something can be just a little bit objective, or a whole lot objective?

We are discussing two subjects, and I have having problems understanding how you differentiate between them, if at all.

For that matter, your general use of the related terms [objective, objectivism, objectivity] is confusing.

We have:
Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower; in other words, something remains true regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's true.

I believe reality is the interaction between that which knows and that which is known. In other words, what good is reality if there is no one to know it? Or, what good is knowledge if there is nothing to know? I further believe it is this interaction between that which knows and that which is known that objectifies reality. You speak as through reality exists apart from sentience. Even though I believe sentience is a part of reality, I don't believe it's the whole of reality. However, I believe it's an essential part; and, one doesn't exist without the other.

It seems to me in some cases you mean an external, objective truth, and sometimes you mean the recognition of that objective truth, such beliefs being considered 'objective', even if they are not external to the human mind.
These are very different things. One is actuality, one is perception.

"In science, objectivity is based on predictability; and, predictability is based on repeatability. The greater the statistical findings for the experience of a certain phenomenon, the greater objectivity these findings are said to have."
So here you mean perception.
In science, objectivity is not actuality, it is perception.
Science perceives something has a high probability of being objectively true, so without being 100% convinced, only 99%, or 85%, etc, it recognizes something as being objectively true.
Thus, it perceives objectivity in degrees of probability.
This differs considerably from your objectively in that the truth transcends the individual .

Scientific objectivity does not transcend the human mind, it is deeply embedded in the human mind.

This is demonstrated with the case of rogue waves, that I discuss here
http://www.debate.org......
and here
http://www.debate.org......

The objective truth, external to the human mind, was that rogue waves were a fairly common event.
The scientific objective truth, was that such events had a probability of one in ten thousand years. This was based on observable, tested with computer models, according to physics and math as understood, beliefs, which happened to be mistaken.

I believe you point out these differences in 'objective truth', and 'scientific objective truth'.

Are we in agreement?

I never said objectivity transcends the human mind; I said it transcends the individual, meaning it is not, only, the product of the individual but, also, the product of the collective. The point I was trying make is experience, or empiricism, is the foundation of objectivity.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2015 6:48:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/1/2015 10:52:15 PM, s-anthony wrote:
So, something can be just a little bit objective, or a whole lot objective?

We are discussing two subjects, and I have having problems understanding how you differentiate between them, if at all.

For that matter, your general use of the related terms [objective, objectivism, objectivity] is confusing.

We have:
Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower; in other words, something remains true regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's true.


It seems you have a fair idea of all of these things in your mind, but you are new to expressing them, and do not have your terms clearly defined.
It may help to express your meanings to these, and how they relate to each other:
True/truth
Reality
Objectivity
Knowledge
Collective

I believe reality is the interaction between that which knows and that which is known. In other words, what good is reality if there is no one to know it? Or, what good is knowledge if there is nothing to know? I further believe it is this interaction between that which knows and that which is known that objectifies reality. You speak as through reality exists apart from sentience. Even though I believe sentience is a part of reality, I don't believe it's the whole of reality. However, I believe it's an essential part; and, one doesn't exist without the other.


'Sentience beings are inseparable from reality, interaction is required'? -
Is that what you are saying?
" one (sentience being) doesn't exist without the other (reality)."
So, let's say there is a planet somewhere, and there is no living thing there.
would you then say it is.....not real.......not a part of reality.....does not exist...is not true?

If there are no living things anywhere, there is no reality? That seems clear if I understand you.

Something is 'true', even if no one thinks it is? Are all real things true, and all true things real?
It seems not, because of your statements "truth is independent of the knower" and "interaction between that which knows and that which is known that objectifies reality".
So, if there is no interaction, there is reality, without objectification?
I can not put sense to your use of true/truth, and reality.
This really is confusing.

Knowledge by definition requires a mind, and information.
Minds may not have knowledge, information may not provide knowledge.
These are all true with standard meanings of the words.
Saying "what good is knowledge if there is nothing to know" is rather like gibberish.
If there is no mind, or no information, there is no knowledge. You seem to confuse knowledge and information - but difficult to tell.

It seems to me in some cases you mean an external, objective truth, and sometimes you mean the recognition of that objective truth, such beliefs being considered 'objective', even if they are not external to the human mind.
These are very different things. One is actuality, one is perception.

"In science, objectivity is based on predictability; and, predictability is based on repeatability. The greater the statistical findings for the experience of a certain phenomenon, the greater objectivity these findings are said to have."
So here you mean perception.
In science, objectivity is not actuality, it is perception.
Science perceives something has a high probability of being objectively true, so without being 100% convinced, only 99%, or 85%, etc, it recognizes something as being objectively true.
Thus, it perceives objectivity in degrees of probability.
This differs considerably from your objectively in that the truth transcends the individual .

Scientific objectivity does not transcend the human mind, it is deeply embedded in the human mind.

This is demonstrated with the case of rogue waves, that I discuss here
http://www.debate.org......
and here
http://www.debate.org......

The objective truth, external to the human mind, was that rogue waves were a fairly common event.
The scientific objective truth, was that such events had a probability of one in ten thousand years. This was based on observable, tested with computer models, according to physics and math as understood, beliefs, which happened to be mistaken.

I believe you point out these differences in 'objective truth', and 'scientific objective truth'.

Are we in agreement?

I never said objectivity transcends the human mind; I said it transcends the individual, meaning it is not, only, the product of the individual but, also, the product of the collective. The point I was trying make is experience, or empiricism, is the foundation of objectivity.

You said "truth is independent of the knower".
And now 'Objectivity (does not) transcend the human mind, but does transcend the individual' - it is a produce of the collective.
So objectivity, which I assume is true, and is congruent with reality, (althought I do not see how with your usage) is the product of the collective- requires the collective to recognize it, before it exists.
The collective produces objectivity.
How is this related to truth, and reality? Does the collective produce them as well?
Who is The Collective - all of society, or a certain group?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 10:10:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
UhSentience beings are inseparable from reality, interaction is required'? -

Is that what you are saying?

" one (sentience being) doesn't exist without the other (reality)."
So, let's say there is a planet somewhere, and there is no living thing there.
would you then say it is.....not real.......not a part of reality.....does not exist...is not true?

If there are no living things anywhere, there is no reality? That seems clear if I understand you.

I believe sentient beings are distinct from nonsentient things; however, nonsentient things cannot be known without sentient beings. So, asking me a question about the existence of some unknown planet is nonsense. You're in effect saying we can know things exist without knowing they exist.

Something is 'true', even if no one thinks it is? Are all real things true, and all true things real?
It seems not, because of your statements "truth is independent of the knower" and "interaction between that which knows and that which is known that objectifies reality".
So, if there is no interaction, there is reality, without objectification?
I can not put sense to your use of true/truth, and reality.
This really is confusing.

In the OP, I said, "Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower." I am not, merely, an objectivist. I clearly stated I was an objectivist and a subjectivist, meaning I believe nonsentient things are distinct from sentience; however, one does not exist without the other.

Knowledge by definition requires a mind, and information.
Minds may not have knowledge, information may not provide knowledge.
These are all true with standard meanings of the words.
Saying "what good is knowledge if there is nothing to know" is rather like gibberish.
If there is no mind, or no information, there is no knowledge. You seem to confuse knowledge and information - but difficult to tell.

This is the point at which I believe we are in agreement.

You said "truth is independent of the knower".
And now 'Objectivity (does not) transcend the human mind, but does transcend the individual' - it is a produce of the collective.
So objectivity, which I assume is true, and is congruent with reality, (althought I do not see how with your usage) is the product of the collective- requires the collective to recognize it, before it exists.
The collective produces objectivity.
How is this related to truth, and reality? Does the collective produce them as well?
Who is The Collective - all of society, or a certain group?

Objectivity is the offspring of the coming together of sentience, or knowledge, with nonsentient or unknown things. I believe all sentience whether individually or collectively produces objectivity. However, I believe collectively we produce greater objectivity.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2015 4:44:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/3/2015 10:10:52 AM, s-anthony wrote:
UhSentience beings are inseparable from reality, interaction is required'? -

Is that what you are saying?

" one (sentience being) doesn't exist without the other (reality)."
So, let's say there is a planet somewhere, and there is no living thing there.
would you then say it is.....not real.......not a part of reality.....does not exist...is not true?

If there are no living things anywhere, there is no reality? That seems clear if I understand you.

I believe sentient beings are distinct from nonsentient things; however, nonsentient things cannot be known without sentient beings. So, asking me a question about the existence of some unknown planet is nonsense. You're in effect saying we can know things exist without knowing they exist.

There is a difference between knowing 'something' exists, and 'some exact particular thing' exists.
No one on earth ever saw the far side of the moon before 1968.
It could have been, anything, but we knew there was something there, but we did not know how many craters, etc. Did they exist before 1968, or not?

We know, to a near certainty, that there are stars, plants, moons, that we have never seen. They have never been experienced, we can not know they exist, but we do believe there are some out there. We can know in a general way, they exist, without knowing the particulars.
Do they exist before any sentient being experiences them?

Something is 'true', even if no one thinks it is? Are all real things true, and all true things real?
It seems not, because of your statements "truth is independent of the knower" and "interaction between that which knows and that which is known that objectifies reality".
So, if there is no interaction, there is reality, without objectification?
I can not put sense to your use of true/truth, and reality.
This really is confusing.

In the OP, I said, "Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower." I am not, merely, an objectivist. I clearly stated I was an objectivist and a subjectivist, meaning I believe nonsentient things are distinct from sentience; however, one does not exist without the other.

Well, the consequence of this is that stars that have not been experienced by sentient beings, do not exist, and come into existence the moment they are perceived or experienced by a sentient being.
Cameras (Hubble) that photograph that section of space, will record nothing - as cameras are not sentient beings .So, If you are correct, this would be proof of other sentient life that has perceived them.
Is that your intent - your convincing evidence of one or more nonhuman sentient beings?

Knowledge by definition requires a mind, and information.
Minds may not have knowledge, information may not provide knowledge.
These are all true with standard meanings of the words.
Saying "what good is knowledge if there is nothing to know" is rather like gibberish.
If there is no mind, or no information, there is no knowledge. You seem to confuse knowledge and information - but difficult to tell.

This is the point at which I believe we are in agreement.

You agree that your statement "what good is knowledge if there is nothing to know" is rather like gibbeirsh?

You said "truth is independent of the knower".
And now 'Objectivity (does not) transcend the human mind, but does transcend the individual' - it is a produce of the collective.
So objectivity, which I assume is true, and is congruent with reality, (althought I do not see how with your usage) is the product of the collective- requires the collective to recognize it, before it exists.
The collective produces objectivity.
How is this related to truth, and reality? Does the collective produce them as well?
Who is The Collective - all of society, or a certain group?

Objectivity is the offspring of the coming together of sentience, or knowledge, with nonsentient or unknown things. I believe all sentience whether individually or collectively produces objectivity. However, I believe collectively we produce greater objectivity.

So, there is no objective existence until it has been perceived by a sentient being.
The center of the earth does not exist, since it was never perceived by a sentient being, only supposed OR - if it does exist, this is your proof of other non-human sentient being(s).
There is nothing beneath the permafrost of the Antarctic, unless it was perceived by one or more sentient being - which as far as we know is not human, or any life form we know about.
Before there were sentient beings on earth, we are lead to believe, by science, that there was "stuff". Rocks, minerals, "stuff", but no life.
By your beliefs, this "stuff" never existed OR this is your proof of other sentient beings we do not know about.
These are all consequences, of what you say.
Do you see it differently?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 5:27:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In saying an object does not exist apart from experience, I'm not in anyway saying the fundamental properties do not exist but our experience of it does not exist. In other words, the essential properties are objectified, or given thingness, by experience. For instance, the varied mechanisms a sentient being has for detection go to the interpretation of a "thing". These mechanisms include the use and range of the five senses. Not all sentient beings have the same means of detection. For instance, a bat does not see a thing, at all, but senses it through its use of sonar. We see within a mere fraction of the color spectrum. Our "experience" is defined by our faculties.

It is a complete dismissal of reality to conclude our experiences create the standard for a universe of sentience or that a "thing" is limited or defined exhaustively by our finite means of detection.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 6:22:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 5:27:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In saying an object does not exist apart from experience, I'm not in anyway saying :the fundamental properties do not exist but our experience of it does not exist.

I fail to see how an object can exist apart from its fundamental properties.
I have never heard of a description of any reality where that is possible.

In other words, the essential properties are objectified, or given thingness, by experience. For instance, the varied mechanisms a sentient being has for detection go to the interpretation of a "thing". These mechanisms include the use and range of the five senses. Not all sentient beings have the same means of detection. For instance, a bat does not see a thing, at all, but senses it through its use of sonar. We see within a mere fraction of the color spectrum. Our "experience" is defined by our faculties.

So a thing only exists as it is perceived.
Essential properties are determined by experiences of sentient beings.
If only bats perceive it, it has no visible existence.

It is a complete dismissal of reality to conclude our experiences create the standard for a universe of sentience or that a "thing" is limited or defined exhaustively by our finite means of detection.

And yet you tell us, things only exist as they are perceived. Their existence is limited to how they are perceived by sentient beings.

I see little more than endless contradictions in your view of reality.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 11:57:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 6:22:40 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:27:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In saying an object does not exist apart from experience, I'm not in anyway saying :the fundamental properties do not exist but our experience of it does not exist.

I fail to see how an object can exist apart from its fundamental properties.
I have never heard of a description of any reality where that is possible.

Please reread my response. I said, explicitly, in any case the fundamental properties remain.


In other words, the essential properties are objectified, or given thingness, by experience. For instance, the varied mechanisms a sentient being has for detection go to the interpretation of a "thing". These mechanisms include the use and range of the five senses. Not all sentient beings have the same means of detection. For instance, a bat does not see a thing, at all, but senses it through its use of sonar. We see within a mere fraction of the color spectrum. Our "experience" is defined by our faculties.

So a thing only exists as it is perceived.
Essential properties are determined by experiences of sentient beings.
If only bats perceive it, it has no visible existence.

If only bats were to perceive something and bats do not have the sense of sight, then, to what would it be visible?


It is a complete dismissal of reality to conclude our experiences create the standard for a universe of sentience or that a "thing" is limited or defined exhaustively by our finite means of detection.

And yet you tell us, things only exist as they are perceived. Their existence is limited to how they are perceived by sentient beings.

I see little more than endless contradictions in your view of reality.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:06:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In english, a bird flies into a glass window because its perception says nothing is there. But the glass is still there.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:10:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So if things don't happen the way you expect then its probable something outside your perception is the cause. Therefore your subjective view is flawed.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:42:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/26/2015 7:19:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
It's a misnomer, at least from my understanding, to believe the idea of subjectivism means there are no wrong ideas. This I believe can't be further from the truth. Subjectivism does not hold all truths are universal or all things are true for all people. In fact, that's the teaching of objectivism.

Objectivism teaches truth is independent of the knower; in other words, something remains true regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it's true.

On the other hand, subjectivism does not teach truth is independent of one's beliefs. In other words, if I believe something is true, then, for me, it is true. Now, it may indeed be true for me and false for you. Subjectivists do not have a problem with that; objectivists on the other hand do.

Personally, I am neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist but both. I believe the truth is both personal and universal.

As our perception of reality depends on our subjective interpretation, there's hardly something called "objective truth", and if there is, it is not possible that you have access to it. As a subjectivist, I do think some beliefs are inferior in practice to others, from the very moment that you give the mentioned belief a purpose. Is the belief's purpose to make people happy? To create social cohesiveness? Then it is quite easy to label beliefs into "good" and "bad" by simply measure the amount of happiness and social cohesiveness they create when applied to society.

As a subjectivist, I'm also not for judging other people, because I can understand that what works for me, may not work for other person, specialy in terms of inner wellbeing. To put a reductive example, I like red color and despise veige. But I'm not going to judge you if you like it, I can understand that our view is subjective and therefore veige may very well be a beautiful color for you. This is one thing I don't like about objectivists, they believe they know objective truth, and therefore they feel they have the authority to judge other people.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 6:03:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 11:57:47 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:22:40 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:27:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In saying an object does not exist apart from experience, I'm not in anyway saying :the fundamental properties do not exist but our experience of it does not exist.

I fail to see how an object can exist apart from its fundamental properties.
I have never heard of a description of any reality where that is possible.

Please reread my response. I said, explicitly, in any case the fundamental properties remain.


In other words, the essential properties are objectified, or given thingness, by experience. For instance, the varied mechanisms a sentient being has for detection go to the interpretation of a "thing". These mechanisms include the use and range of the five senses. Not all sentient beings have the same means of detection. For instance, a bat does not see a thing, at all, but senses it through its use of sonar. We see within a mere fraction of the color spectrum. Our "experience" is defined by our faculties.

So a thing only exists as it is perceived.
Essential properties are determined by experiences of sentient beings.
If only bats perceive it, it has no visible existence.

If only bats were to perceive something and bats do not have the sense of sight, then, to what would it be visible?

So you make a significant distinction between 'potentially visible', and 'visible'.
There are three states of being concerning our topic of discussion - visible, invisible, and potentially visible.
Things which are potentially visible, only become visible, if they are perceived by a sentient being.
In other words, cameras are able to record images of things which are not visible, like elephants which have no visible existence if they are not seen by a sentient being.
Do I have it right?

Photo eye sensors, which trip mechanisms if a thing passes through a light beam, are able to detect things that are not visible, according to you.
How its it that the beam of light is broken, by this thing which has no visible existence?

How is it that plants, which depend on absorbing light rays for photosynthesis, are able to use light, if they have no visible existence?


It is a complete dismissal of reality to conclude our experiences create the standard for a universe of sentience or that a "thing" is limited or defined exhaustively by our finite means of detection.

And yet you tell us, things only exist as they are perceived. Their existence is limited to how they are perceived by sentient beings.

I see little more than endless contradictions in your view of reality.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 6:19:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
lol. The sensor senses whatever breaks the beam. And yes a sensor is not sentient but it was created by a sentient being for that specific purpose. And a plant is a living thing. Although not very smart it responds to external stimulus and is therefore sentient. You are arguing semantics.

At 5/6/2015 6:03:47 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:57:47 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:22:40 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:27:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In saying an object does not exist apart from experience, I'm not in anyway saying :the fundamental properties do not exist but our experience of it does not exist.

I fail to see how an object can exist apart from its fundamental properties.
I have never heard of a description of any reality where that is possible.

Please reread my response. I said, explicitly, in any case the fundamental properties remain.


In other words, the essential properties are objectified, or given thingness, by experience. For instance, the varied mechanisms a sentient being has for detection go to the interpretation of a "thing". These mechanisms include the use and range of the five senses. Not all sentient beings have the same means of detection. For instance, a bat does not see a thing, at all, but senses it through its use of sonar. We see within a mere fraction of the color spectrum. Our "experience" is defined by our faculties.

So a thing only exists as it is perceived.
Essential properties are determined by experiences of sentient beings.
If only bats perceive it, it has no visible existence.

If only bats were to perceive something and bats do not have the sense of sight, then, to what would it be visible?

So you make a significant distinction between 'potentially visible', and 'visible'.
There are three states of being concerning our topic of discussion - visible, invisible, and potentially visible.
Things which are potentially visible, only become visible, if they are perceived by a sentient being.
In other words, cameras are able to record images of things which are not visible, like elephants which have no visible existence if they are not seen by a sentient being.
Do I have it right?

Photo eye sensors, which trip mechanisms if a thing passes through a light beam, are able to detect things that are not visible, according to you.
How its it that the beam of light is broken, by this thing which has no visible existence?

How is it that plants, which depend on absorbing light rays for photosynthesis, are able to use light, if they have no visible existence?



It is a complete dismissal of reality to conclude our experiences create the standard for a universe of sentience or that a "thing" is limited or defined exhaustively by our finite means of detection.

And yet you tell us, things only exist as they are perceived. Their existence is limited to how they are perceived by sentient beings.

I see little more than endless contradictions in your view of reality.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 6:25:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 6:19:58 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol. The sensor senses whatever breaks the beam. And yes a sensor is not sentient but it was created by a sentient being for that specific purpose. And a plant is a living thing. Although not very smart it responds to external stimulus and is therefore sentient. You are arguing semantics.

At 5/6/2015 6:03:47 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:57:47 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:22:40 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:27:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In saying an object does not exist apart from experience, I'm not in anyway saying :the fundamental properties do not exist but our experience of it does not exist.

I fail to see how an object can exist apart from its fundamental properties.
I have never heard of a description of any reality where that is possible.

Please reread my response. I said, explicitly, in any case the fundamental properties remain.


In other words, the essential properties are objectified, or given thingness, by experience. For instance, the varied mechanisms a sentient being has for detection go to the interpretation of a "thing". These mechanisms include the use and range of the five senses. Not all sentient beings have the same means of detection. For instance, a bat does not see a thing, at all, but senses it through its use of sonar. We see within a mere fraction of the color spectrum. Our "experience" is defined by our faculties.

So a thing only exists as it is perceived.
Essential properties are determined by experiences of sentient beings.
If only bats perceive it, it has no visible existence.

If only bats were to perceive something and bats do not have the sense of sight, then, to what would it be visible?

So you make a significant distinction between 'potentially visible', and 'visible'.
There are three states of being concerning our topic of discussion - visible, invisible, and potentially visible.
Things which are potentially visible, only become visible, if they are perceived by a sentient being.
In other words, cameras are able to record images of things which are not visible, like elephants which have no visible existence if they are not seen by a sentient being.
Do I have it right?

Photo eye sensors, which trip mechanisms if a thing passes through a light beam, are able to detect things that are not visible, according to you.
How its it that the beam of light is broken, by this thing which has no visible existence?

How is it that plants, which depend on absorbing light rays for photosynthesis, are able to use light, if they have no visible existence?



It is a complete dismissal of reality to conclude our experiences create the standard for a universe of sentience or that a "thing" is limited or defined exhaustively by our finite means of detection.

And yet you tell us, things only exist as they are perceived. Their existence is limited to how they are perceived by sentient beings.

I see little more than endless contradictions in your view of reality.

So plants are not very smart.
This is interesting.
Can you give me a scale, or comparison.
For example, how smart is a cucumber compared to Furyan5?
Is a cucumber vine smarter than a pansy?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 7:32:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
That's subjective. I work for a living. A plant just relaxes in the sun. In my opinion the plant is probably smarter in this respect. Plus a plant doesn't make stupid remarks so.... What do you think?

At 5/6/2015 6:25:39 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/6/2015 6:19:58 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
lol. The sensor senses whatever breaks the beam. And yes a sensor is not sentient but it was created by a sentient being for that specific purpose. And a plant is a living thing. Although not very smart it responds to external stimulus and is therefore sentient. You are arguing semantics.

At 5/6/2015 6:03:47 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:57:47 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 5/4/2015 6:22:40 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 5/4/2015 5:27:47 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In saying an object does not exist apart from experience, I'm not in anyway saying :the fundamental properties do not exist but our experience of it does not exist.

I fail to see how an object can exist apart from its fundamental properties.
I have never heard of a description of any reality where that is possible.

Please reread my response. I said, explicitly, in any case the fundamental properties remain.


In other words, the essential properties are objectified, or given thingness, by experience. For instance, the varied mechanisms a sentient being has for detection go to the interpretation of a "thing". These mechanisms include the use and range of the five senses. Not all sentient beings have the same means of detection. For instance, a bat does not see a thing, at all, but senses it through its use of sonar. We see within a mere fraction of the color spectrum. Our "experience" is defined by our faculties.

So a thing only exists as it is perceived.
Essential properties are determined by experiences of sentient beings.
If only bats perceive it, it has no visible existence.

If only bats were to perceive something and bats do not have the sense of sight, then, to what would it be visible?

So you make a significant distinction between 'potentially visible', and 'visible'.
There are three states of being concerning our topic of discussion - visible, invisible, and potentially visible.
Things which are potentially visible, only become visible, if they are perceived by a sentient being.
In other words, cameras are able to record images of things which are not visible, like elephants which have no visible existence if they are not seen by a sentient being.
Do I have it right?

Photo eye sensors, which trip mechanisms if a thing passes through a light beam, are able to detect things that are not visible, according to you.
How its it that the beam of light is broken, by this thing which has no visible existence?

How is it that plants, which depend on absorbing light rays for photosynthesis, are able to use light, if they have no visible existence?



It is a complete dismissal of reality to conclude our experiences create the standard for a universe of sentience or that a "thing" is limited or defined exhaustively by our finite means of detection.

And yet you tell us, things only exist as they are perceived. Their existence is limited to how they are perceived by sentient beings.

I see little more than endless contradictions in your view of reality.

So plants are not very smart.
This is interesting.
Can you give me a scale, or comparison.
For example, how smart is a cucumber compared to Furyan5?
Is a cucumber vine smarter than a pansy?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 8:05:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ouch! ha ha ha ha ha

At 5/6/2015 8:04:19 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Some people should remain silent and thought a fool, rather than speak and remove all doubt.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 12:15:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 4:06:02 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
In english, a bird flies into a glass window because its perception says nothing is there. But the glass is still there.

I never said nothing was there. I said that which we experience is defined by our perception.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 4:38:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So if things don't happen the way you expect then its probable something outside your perception is the cause. Therefore your subjective view is flawed.

I have no problem with things existing outside of our perception. Neither do I have a problem with saying our perception is flawed. The problem I see is saying things exist, universally, in accordance with our subjective experience of those things.