The Heart of Reality: The Mysteries of Life

[FZ+]

Let me ask you this. At what percentage level (50%, 75%, 100%?) would it actually take for you to tell yourself to get on with it (life, etc.) and stop deliberating on it?

I am not completely sure. But here it is not the case. While existence may or may not be true, there are some advantages to believing that I exist compared to I don't. So I make this assumption because it is useful. Hell, in places where I have to make a choice, any level greater than 50% will do. When no choice has to be made, then caution is required, and hence acknowledgment. BTW, I'm not sure you can quantify these in such a way. Kinda hard to find a reference point.

We have the light of the sun by which we see (truth), and we have the warmth of the sun which sustains us (good). Are these just concepts or, do they speak about the reality of the sun?

Concepts. As shown by the fact they are only created in virtuality. Ie warmth is only good when taken in a certain context. And truth is still an unreachable goal - the light does hide as well.

Oh, the moment of truth! Yes, but how can you as a "subjective individual" acknowledge that? Sounds kind of circular doesn't it? How can you even acknowledge "the truth" about relativity then?

Hence the disclaimer - see my sig. I feel that x is consistent with my experiences, and that to me it is more true than not true. I feel that with my data and experiences, which is the point of communication, you may find it similarly truer than the alternatives. Yes, we can extend this to infinity of relatives and subjectives. But I think this converges on this notion, than diverges into uncertainty.

I just used this to illustrate the difference between that which is animate and that which is inanimate. Both of which have a form and essence by the way.

Then animation can occur without will or notion.

Consider the can of soup. The can is the "unedible" form and the soup is the essence which "nourishes." Whereas the can gets thrown into the dump and the soup gets ingested into your body as food.

I beg to differ. The soup is also the form, a pattern of electron, mass, energy etc that give it the properties we know it for. The can and soup are both forms. The essence here is in the taste or look of the soup, which is the psychological impulses we derive via our senses. While the soup physically provides us with the patterned forms of physicality our material bodies require, our mind takes in the mental input and appends the perceived essence of the soup into our virtual tapestry of the universe.

That which is observable "about life," but not life itself, which can only be experienced within.

And the experience as a process is a solely mind virtual one, which we have within the mind. Hence life is, as being non-objective, a completely virtual, relative and subjective concept, not an actuality.

Hey, I don't have any difficulty whatsoever motivating myself to get up and get something to eat when I'm hungry.

There is very good evidence this is from your genes. Dare I say automaton?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Should we allow it to exist of its own accord, regardless of what others might say? Where's the responsibility in that?

I would simply say that I have no power to either allow, or deny, it to exist.

If in fact science does say, "The quest for truth, whatever that truth might be," then what do you think about it opening up a separate branch dedicated to the study of religion? And maybe even have it funded by the church, and yet remain independent of the church, in order to maintain impartiallity? I don't know it's just an idea?

Hey if nothing else, maybe the church might consider doing it?

Do you mean ask science to prove that there is a god? I don't think that is possible to do at this stage of human existence. Are you of the opinion that science can/could prove such a thing?

 

[Iacchus32]

A Box of Chocolates

From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=611" ...

Mystery can be likened unto the "living substance" or food. While history can be likened unto the wrapper it comes in, to be discarded once we partake of the mystery.

Why would you settle for the box? when you can have the chocolates instead?

Isn't that kind of what the problem is with religion? They get all caught up in the history and formality of it, while losing sight of the mystery and the essence which enlivens the soul. Whereas science steps in and takes it a step further and says, Where is the substance behind all this dead formalism? and drops the whole thing entirely deeming it unworthy to investigate.

It's too bad science can't acquire a taste for chocolates? But, that would all be in the mind of the chocoholic now wouldn't it?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I would simply say that I have no power to either allow, or deny, it to exist.

Then what do you think about ethics? Shouldn't they be taken into account?

Do you mean ask science to prove that there is a god? I don't think that is possible to do at this stage of human existence. Are you of the opinion that science can/could prove such a thing?

I don't see why science can't "validate" as much as possible and then publish the results, and use that as a basis for further research. Am not sure it would be all that different from the individual who conducts his own research (as opposed to someone telling him about it) and learning how to maintain his objectivity in order to get the best results. At least this is kind of the way it happened with me, although I didn't find the need to do a lot of "extensive research." I just figured that if God existed things should happen more as a matter of course, in which case I should just pay attention (objectively) to my life as it unfolded. And sure enough, things began to happen one right after the other.

While I also discovered the "home grown" varity of God is the most potent!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I am not completely sure. But here it is not the case. While existence may or may not be true, there are some advantages to believing that I exist compared to I don't. So I make this assumption because it is useful. Hell, in places where I have to make a choice, any level greater than 50% will do. When no choice has to be made, then caution is required, and hence acknowledgment. BTW, I'm not sure you can quantify these in such a way. Kinda hard to find a reference point.

It's just a relative scale, versus being completey sure. Of course you did have to consider what it means to be completely sure now didn't you? Hope it wasn't too much of a strain!

Concepts. As shown by the fact they are only created in virtuality. Ie warmth is only good when taken in a certain context. And truth is still an unreachable goal - the light does hide as well.

Well what about within context of the sun shining down on earth, as it provides both light and warmth (sustenance).

Hence the disclaimer - see my sig. I feel that x is consistent with my experiences, and that to me it is more true than not true. I feel that with my data and experiences, which is the point of communication, you may find it similarly truer than the alternatives. Yes, we can extend this to infinity of relatives and subjectives. But I think this converges on this notion, than diverges into uncertainty.

Hmm ... I was just telling Mentat that our feelings allow us to validate and give definition to what we perceive. Maybe you need to take some time out from all this brain work and listen to your heart for a change?

Then animation can occur without will or notion.

And here I'm speaking about the life within that animates it.

I beg to differ. The soup is also the form, a pattern of electron, mass, energy etc that give it the properties we know it for. The can and soup are both forms. The essence here is in the taste or look of the soup, which is the psychological impulses we derive via our senses. While the soup physically provides us with the patterned forms of physicality our material bodies require, our mind takes in the mental input and appends the perceived essence of the soup into our virtual tapestry of the universe.

No, if you look at it in terms of a "can of soup" (notice I'm including the can and the soup), the essence would be the soup itself. I thought this analogy might help make things easier, while bringing up the notion that the form is typcially cast aside (as unedible) and the essence is that which is consumed.

And the experience as a process is a solely mind virtual one, which we have within the mind. Hence life is, as being non-objective, a completely virtual, relative and subjective concept, not an actuality.

This almost sounds like a plausible argument for the existence of you know Who ... and where does this "virtual entity" go after the machine can no longer function?

There is very good evidence this is from your genes. Dare I say automaton?

Yes, if it was entirely a subconscious act, which it's not, although I would say with some people it gets pretty close, even me sometimes.

 

[BoulderHead]

Then what do you think about ethics? Shouldn't they be taken into account?

If you asked me if I thought science ought to start from a position of believing the universe was created I would say no. I'd rather see it start from a position of minimal assumptions and simply study the things in nature. If you mean that in fairness 'they' should try to present two pictures, one with and one with god, then I'd comment that as far as I know there already are scientists who have a belief in a creator and try to take God into account. This thing people call God seems pretty untestable to me and so barring some stumbling onto a piece of his toenail I don't know of what use science could be in this matter.

I don't see why science can't "validate" as much as possible and then publish the results, and use that as a basis for further research.

And if there was nothing it could validate would you feel satisfied or can satisfaction only come with positive results?

I just figured that if God existed things should happen more as a matter of course, in which case I should just pay attention (objectively) to my life as it unfolded. And sure enough, things began to happen one right after the other.

Why not simply take the data we already have and decide for yourself what it might mean?

While I also discovered the "home grown" varity of God is the most potent!

I had some very potent home-grown once and thought I had seen God.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
If you asked me if I thought science ought to start from a position of believing the universe was created I would say no. I'd rather see it start from a position of minimal assumptions and simply study the things in nature. If you mean that in fairness 'they' should try to present two pictures, one with and one with god, then I'd comment that as far as I know there already are scientists who have a belief in a creator and try to take God into account. This thing people call God seems pretty untestable to me and so barring some stumbling onto a piece of his toenail I don't know of what use science could be in this matter.

There's a great deal I don't know about science either, and there's a great deal I don't care to know about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (or shouldn't). Science is sort of like the prodigal son of religion anyway isn't it? In the sense that it was rebellious and wanted to go out and establish its own name? Maybe it's time for some sort of reconciliation to occur?

And if there was nothing it could validate would you feel satisfied or can satisfaction only come with positive results?

Maybe I would take up the matter myself. Probably not, I'm too lazy, although I have written a book about it already.

Why not simply take the data we already have and decide for yourself what it might mean?

Because God very tricky character. He don't always maintain same form. I think an attempt could be made to bring some of the basic tenets up to date, so that maybe even lay people could understand, I guess?

I had some very potent home-grown once and thought I had seen God.

What makes you think I was "refer"-ring to that?

Actually I had it in mind when I said it, but I only said because it seemed like the best way to put it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what's the difference between a can of soup and the soup that's contained within? Truth is the vessel (conveyer of essence) and the good is contained within (experience of essence).

Please tell me which is more substantial?

Whereas we find so many truths of life piled up in landfills, with all the "spent essences" -- which is also truth or, "nonessential" -- flushed down the drain.

So are you saying that the fluids, that flow within me, are worth more than the skin that covers over them? This doesn't seem logical. If they were not held in, they would spill out everywhere, and they wouldn't be of much use to me then, would they?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If it's a living cell, it still has an "external membrane," as well as the "living substance" within that membrane.

Why does that matter? It is a physical entity with parts. The cell itself has things within it. That doesn't make it any less alive.

For the sake of clarity let's consider a can of soup. You have the can itself (form) and you have the soup within the can (essence). Which is to say everything has an essence and a form, dead, living or otherwise.

So soup is the essence of a soup can? What about an empty soup can? Is it now dead?

Ever hear the expression "All brains and no common sense?" You do not require wisdom to attain knowledge because knowledge is "external." And how do you recognize the knowledge or truth to anything? By "observing" its outer form (typically). Like the knowledge of an ant, or knowldege of a tree, or knowledge of a fish, etc. "Truth is the vessel (form) and the Good is contained within (essence)."

This may be your belief, but it is not necessarily true. Besides, you were the one who said that you needed wisdom, in order to attain to knowledge, and that wisdom was "within" knowledge. This is obviously not so, even from your (quoted) reasoning.

It still puts science in the position of being "the observer" as opposed to being out on the "playing field." Who do you think is going to have more (direct) knowledge about the game? Of course that may be debatable as well, considering the number of "fanatics" out there?

That depends. If the observer has studied the game, s/he can have even greater knowledge of it then those on the field. Besides, I don't think this illustration is very good, relative to science, because you have yet to define who it is that is "out on the playing field".

Yes, anything to take the focus off our brains for a bit! Whereas it's the heart that spurs the body into motion as well as allows it to regenerate itself.

So what? You still haven't countered my point: The brain is the center of our lives, without it we would die. You cannot get a brain transplant, but you can get a heart transplant. All the heart is good for is pumping blood. The heart would not regenerate the body if not give "orders" from the brain. Can you counter any of these arguments?

Although my consciousness is located around my head, particularly in front of my face (my eyes), the funniest thing is that it doesn't "feel" anything.

No offense, but if someone were to slap you in the face, you'd feel it.

Whereas my feelings are located more so in chest, around my solar plexis (including both heart and lungs), and it's our feelings that allow us to validate and give definition to what we percieve. This is equally important.

Where do you get these beliefs? "My feelings are located more so in my chest"? Honestly!

Almost all of the tissue that makes up your body has feeling, it has nothing to do with being located near your heart.

Besides, if your eyeballs were to extend out your feet, your sense of perception would probably arise from there. Ha ha!

You're proving my point. What I'm saying is that I will agree that the "seat of our consciousness" is in our heart when I start to see, hear, smell, and taste with it (I'm being as plain as I can be).

The feeling of "being alive," whether it includes interaction with the outer world or not, is totally internal.

What is the feeling of "being alive"?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
So are you saying that the fluids, that flow within me, are worth more than the skin that covers over them? This doesn't seem logical. If they were not held in, they would spill out everywhere, and they wouldn't be of much use to me then, would they?

Why build a house if it wasn't for the sake of protecting your wife and children? Which is more important? The house or your family?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why does that matter? It is a physical entity with parts. The cell itself has things within it. That doesn't make it any less alive.

No, I'm saying it's what's "within" the cell that makes it alive. And, while the exterior is the means by which to keep it alive, "the life" of the cell exists within.

So soup is the essence of a soup can? What about an empty soup can? Is it now dead?

No, I'm saying a "can of soup," which includes both the soup and the can. Whereas once the soup is consumed, the can is practically useless (or dead), unless you have some other possible use for it.

This may be your belief, but it is not necessarily true. Besides, you were the one who said that you needed wisdom, in order to attain to knowledge, and that wisdom was "within" knowledge. This is obviously not so, even from your (quoted) reasoning.

No, I don't think you read that correctly ... "You do not require wisdom to attain knowledge because knowledge is 'external'" ... Is this the quote you're referring to? Please read it again. Whereas knowledge amounts to nothing or, is potentially dangerous, without the wisdom to articulate it.

That depends. If the observer has studied the game, s/he can have even greater knowledge of it then those on the field. Besides, I don't think this illustration is very good, relative to science, because you have yet to define who it is that is "out on the playing field".

There's a vast difference between studying what life is about (from without) and the actual experience of life itself (which is within).

So what? You still haven't countered my point: The brain is the center of our lives, without it we would die. You cannot get a brain transplant, but you can get a heart transplant. All the heart is good for is pumping blood. The heart would not regenerate the body if not give "orders" from the brain. Can you counter any of these arguments?

Acutally I never said it wasn't and, although I think it can be viewed as the "central processor," it doesn't actually feel anything. This is what I was trying to explain about my consciousness not feeling anything (below), which I think you misunderstood.

No offense, but if someone were to slap you in the face, you'd feel it.

Am referring to my consciousness (with respect to my brain) here.

Where do you get these beliefs? "My feelings are located more so in my chest"? Honestly!

I'm speaking about my emotions here.

Almost all of the tissue that makes up your body has feeling, it has nothing to do with being located near your heart.

As for my "emotional awareness," I believe most of that arises from my heart and chest.

You're proving my point. What I'm saying is that I will agree that the "seat of our consciousness" is in our heart when I start to see, hear, smell, and taste with it (I'm being as plain as I can be).

Actually I agree that the seat of our consciousness is our mind. And yet, if we were to take our strongest sense, which is our vision, and redirect it to some other part of the body, we might get a completely different sensation.

What is the feeling of "being alive"?

What is the experience of life?

 

[FZ+]

Well what about within context of the sun shining down on earth, as it provides both light and warmth (sustenance).

Then it still isn't real, as it depends on the observer to define it. Someone who is dying of thirst would find it most evil...

Hmm ... I was just telling Mentat that our feelings allow us to validate and give definition to what we perceive. Maybe you need to take some time out from all this brain work and listen to your heart for a change?

But that isn't validation. Validation requires objectivity. Here's my model...

The heart, or irrational self creates the system of virtual concepts in the mind from sensations, impulses, memories, instincts etc, defining our assigned essences to existent form. Ie. the irrational pins our internal universe to the external one.

The brain, or really rational self performs deductive logic on the created concept-web of the internal image, and transforms it into decisions. Ie. it sifts the jigsaw and makes patterns, compares data, balances inputs.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Then it still isn't real, as it depends on the observer to define it. Someone who is dying of thirst would find it most evil...

Is it no longer possible to say something in the "ideal sense" in order to get your point across?

But that isn't validation. Validation requires objectivity. Here's my model...

The heart, or irrational self creates the system of virtual concepts in the mind from sensations, impulses, memories, instincts etc, defining our assigned essences to existent form. Ie. the irrational pins our internal universe to the external one.

What is the ability to see, touch, smell or whatever, without the sensation that goes along with it? These are the sensations which comprise "the experience," which then becomes the validation.

The brain, or really rational self performs deductive logic on the created concept-web of the internal image, and transforms it into decisions. Ie. it sifts the jigsaw and makes patterns, compares data, balances inputs.

And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

But then we have the five senses, which exist outside of the brain, and therefore "must" be concrete which, we describe as irrational? Now how rational does that sound?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying it's what's "within" the cell that makes it alive. And, while the exterior is the means by which to keep it alive, "the life" of the cell exists within.

You are still talking about a physical entity. Besides, the cell is a form of the essence: atoms. They are forms of the essence: strings (please no arguments about string theory, I'm just making a point. I could have used 0d particles if I wanted to, but I like string theory better). Which of these are alive? The cell, and it is a form.

No, I'm saying a "can of soup," which includes both the soup and the can. Whereas once the soup is consumed, the can is practically useless (or dead), unless you have some other possible use for it.

Exactly, I could have some other use for it if I wanted to. Besides, you are still talking about physical entities (like soup), and so it can always be said that the soup (or whatever other physical entity you bring up) is the form of the essence: subatomic particles.

No, I don't think you read that correctly ... "You do not require wisdom to attain knowledge because knowledge is 'external'" ... Is this the quote you're referring to? Please read it again. Whereas knowledge amounts to nothing or, is potentially dangerous, without the wisdom to articulate it.

Still, wisdom is not the essence of knowledge, even by your own reasoning. Knowledge is still more likely to be the "essence" of wisdom, as knowledge is a pre-requisite to having wisdom.

Acutally I never said it wasn't and, although I think it can be viewed as the "central processor," it doesn't actually feel anything. This is what I was trying to explain about my consciousness not feeling anything (below), which I think you misunderstood.

But your consciousness does feel things. If not, you'd never have a conscious emotion.

Am referring to my consciousness (with respect to my brain) here.

So? Besides, your consciousness is not your brain. Your brain is what produces consciousness. You are mixing the physical and the metaphysical here.

I'm speaking about my emotions here.

But your emotions aren't processed in your chest, they are processed (and, indeed, produced) in your brain.

As for my "emotional awareness," I believe most of that arises from my heart and chest.

The most important words in this (quoted) sentence are "I believe".

Actually I agree that the seat of our consciousness is our mind. And yet, if we were to take our strongest sense, which is our vision, and redirect it to some other part of the body, we might get a completely different sensation.

No we wouldn't, the eye does one thing, and one thing only. Besides, it's not our strongest sense, it's just the one that we rely on the most heavily (and even that is debatable).

What is the experience of life?

I thought I asked you that.

 

[FZ+]

Is it no longer possible to say something in the "ideal sense" in order to get your point across?

Ideals are what I mean by virtual concepts...

What is the ability to see, touch, smell or whatever, without the sensation that goes along with it? These are the sensations which comprise "the experience," which then becomes the validation.

Touch smell etc are sensations. Rather, my use of sensation here is rather broad. Basically anything that deals with sensed notions and inductive reasoning is a product of what you refer to as the "heart".

And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

I am being figurative... By brain I really refer to the processing side of the mind. By this I mean the find that does not create data, but merely transforms it. Ok, objective is the wrong word. But basically, this system processes the data, that is supplied as abstractions. It is linked to the real world via the irrational mind. It uses only deduction... not induction. Our understanding of the concrete can only come through the abstraction data. Only by creating the ideals and glossing over the details we do not know can we come to a conclusion. As an analogy, let me use the example of using analogies in discussions. The analogy itself is always simply a hypothetical scenario, that probably does not exist. But it is useful in furthering understanding. In the same way, the deductive mind can only deal with concepts and if thens. The data can only be taken in virtual form - plugging the photon impacts on the retina directly onto the cortex does not achieve useful results, as neuroscientists can tell us.
Indeed, the brain may not be actually separated in the way I imagine. But I think the evidence points to the idea that it carries out these two distinct functions. Just excuse me when I heinously misuse rational and irrational again...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying it's what's "within" the cell that makes it alive. And, while the exterior is the means by which to keep it alive, "the life" of the cell exists within.

Originally posted by Mentat
So are you saying that the fluids, that flow within me, are worth more than the skin that covers over them? This doesn't seem logical. If they were not held in, they would spill out everywhere, and they wouldn't be of much use to me then, would they?

Why build a house if it wasn't for the sake of protecting your wife and children? Which is more important? The house or your family?

Granted that the house is important, but only to the extent that there's something to protect ... i.e., the "life within."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Touch smell etc are sensations. Rather, my use of sensation here is rather broad. Basically anything that deals with sensed notions and inductive reasoning is a product of what you refer to as the "heart".

Please refer to the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1719" ...

I am being figurative... By brain I really refer to the processing side of the mind. By this I mean the find that does not create data, but merely transforms it. Ok, objective is the wrong word. But basically, this system processes the data, that is supplied as abstractions. It is linked to the real world via the irrational mind. It uses only deduction... not induction. Our understanding of the concrete can only come through the abstraction data. Only by creating the ideals and glossing over the details we do not know can we come to a conclusion. As an analogy, let me use the example of using analogies in discussions. The analogy itself is always simply a hypothetical scenario, that probably does not exist. But it is useful in furthering understanding. In the same way, the deductive mind can only deal with concepts and if thens. The data can only be taken in virtual form - plugging the photon impacts on the retina directly onto the cortex does not achieve useful results, as neuroscientists can tell us.

Does that mean objectivity doesn't exist then? Or, does it only exist with respect to what is subjective? But then again if you can view them in terms of form (outer dimension) and the space within form (inner dimension), then maybe it isn't such a difficult idea to grasp? In fact one might say one is capable of being objective if one could see the form (three dimensional) of anything, even if it occurs within "the form" of our brain? Much like picking up an apple and looking at it round abouts and "observing" its form (as an object). Hmm ... Is this a valid means to prove that objectivity exists? Of course you would have to be able to look at it in the "ideal sense."

Indeed, the brain may not be actually separated in the way I imagine. But I think the evidence points to the idea that it carries out these two distinct functions. Just excuse me when I heinously misuse rational and irrational again...

Well excuse you and everybody else!

 

[FZ+]

Does that mean objectivity doesn't exist then? Or, does it only exist with respect to what is subjective? But then again if you can view them in terms of form (outer dimension) and the space within form (inner dimension), then maybe it isn't such a difficult idea to grasp?

No. This means objective understanding of reality cannot be acheived. This means objective conclusions cannot be reached. But I assume here that the part of the brain that simply processes the data - what I call the rational, is wholly objective. It reaches subjective conclusions because it is fed subjective data. It's an objective process, but the input and output are both subjective.

Yeah, this is a concept I have formed. I have some evidence that supports this, and I think it is right. But I challenge you to disprove, or at least discredit it! Hmm... maybe start new thread.

In fact one might say one is capable of being objective if one could see the form (three dimensional) of anything, even if it occurs within "the form" of our brain?

My point is that this is not possible. Because "seeing" itself is a subjective process. Rather, deductive logic only deals with ideal concepts. If you have the form of the apple, it is meaningless without understanding, probably from other data and personal experimentation. If you saw the apple as just a cluster of atoms, then you will be incapable to act rationally with it. Rather, when you see an apple, you must see it's essence - that it tastes good, for example. This "taste good" is not present in reality. Even when you observe the apple, you are taking in the essence of its shape, not its real, staggeringly complex form. Do you know every atom, every photon of energy? Then, without such real input to your deduction, you cannot make an objective conclusion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
No. This means objective understanding of reality cannot be acheived. This means objective conclusions cannot be reached. But I assume here that the part of the brain that simply processes the data - what I call the rational, is wholly objective. It reaches subjective conclusions because it is fed subjective data. It's an objective process, but the input and output are both subjective.

Yeah, this is a concept I have formed. I have some evidence that supports this, and I think it is right. But I challenge you to disprove, or at least discredit it! Hmm... maybe start new thread.

Then would this be your "ojbective opinion?" I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways ... And what's the difference between what you're saying here, and what I've said before? That the ability to acknowledge truth "must" be inborn (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human), otherwise you will "never" know anything?

My point is that this is not possible. Because "seeing" itself is a subjective process. Rather, deductive logic only deals with ideal concepts. If you have the form of the apple, it is meaningless without understanding, probably from other data and personal experimentation. If you saw the apple as just a cluster of atoms, then you will be incapable to act rationally with it. Rather, when you see an apple, you must see it's essence - that it tastes good, for example. This "taste good" is not present in reality. Even when you observe the apple, you are taking in the essence of its shape, not its real, staggeringly complex form. Do you know every atom, every photon of energy? Then, without such real input to your deduction, you cannot make an objective conclusion.

And why can't you observe the "form" of an apple without "experiencing" its essence, except perhaps the essence of its "exterior color" or, possibly its smell?

 

[FZ+]

Then would this be your "ojbective opinion?" I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways ... And what's the difference between what you're saying here, and what I've said before? That the ability to acknowledge truth "must" be inborn (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human), otherwise you will "never" know anything?

This would be my subjective opinion, based on objective consideration of the subjective experiences I have.

The difference here is the idea of finding personal trueness instead of knowing universal truth. Do you want me to explain what I mean by this?

And why can't you observe the "form" of an apple without "experiencing" its essence, except perhaps the essence of its "exterior color" or, possibly its smell?

Because our experiences are not in the form of atoms, but instead as encoded information in electrical impulses. There are no apples in the brain, but electrical impulses that say - this is an apple. So, this is an image, not a concrete actuality. An idea of essence, not of material form.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
This would be my subjective opinion, based on objective consideration of the subjective experiences I have.

The difference here is the idea of finding personal trueness instead of knowing universal truth. Do you want me to explain what I mean by this?

I'm still not sure that what you're saying here is altogther different from what I'm saying? Did you notice I said the "ability" to acknowledge truth? Truth is truth, whether it be the truth about life on venus or, whether or not I forgot to brush my teeth today. I don't see how you can possibly say anything different?

Obviously reality "must" be real but, does that mean we can experience it in the "ultimate sense," well that's another story.

Because our experiences are not in the form of atoms, but instead as encoded information in electrical impulses. There are no apples in the brain, but electrical impulses that say - this is an apple. So, this is an image, not a concrete actuality. An idea of essence, not of material form.

When I obseve the apple am I not observing the "truth" about the color of the apple, as well as the "truth" about its form or, shape?

 

[FZ+]

I'm still not sure that what you're saying here is altogther different from what I'm saying?

Yeah...
I think of two kinds of truth - objective truth, which is real regardless of observer, and subjective "truth", which is at least partially based on the observer's mind. In an ideal world, subjective truth would = objective truth. But that is not the case. Instead, we have each person having what they themselves consider as true - ie. subjective truth, which may or may not have a ration to the real objective truth. So, you can say the self-declaration of "truth" is a natural element of the mind. But that isn't "known" truth, knowing implying a discovered truth that exists independently.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Yeah...
I think of two kinds of truth - objective truth, which is real regardless of observer, and subjective "truth", which is at least partially based on the observer's mind. In an ideal world, subjective truth would = objective truth. But that is not the case. Instead, we have each person having what they themselves consider as true - ie. subjective truth, which may or may not have a ration to the real objective truth. So, you can say the self-declaration of "truth" is a natural element of the mind. But that isn't "known" truth, knowing implying a discovered truth that exists independently.

Sounds like you're making it a lot more complicated than you need to. Are talking about the difference been an "observable fact" versus somebody's opinion? Say like somebody has a certain preference for a particular brand of corn flakes, and they say, "That's the best!" That's fair enough.

But wouldn't it also be fair to say that the acknowledgment of truth is the acknowledgment of "any observable" element of reality? Say like being a "witness" to the glass which sits on the table? This is not what you mean by "subjective" now is it? Because the glass does actually exist, whether or not I may be the only one privy to it. Meaning if somebody else came along and saw the glass then they too would be a "witness" to the fact (truth) that it exists. Does that make any sense?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why build a house if it wasn't for the sake of protecting your wife and children? Which is more important? The house or your family?

Granted that the house is important, but only to the extent that there's something to protect ... i.e., the "life within."

This is an utterly inapplicable illustration. There are no people living within me. I'm not protecting anything, that is more alive than the external, inside of me.

 

[FZ+]

Sounds like you're making it a lot more complicated than you need to. Are talking about the difference been an "observable fact" versus somebody's opinion? Say like somebody has a certain preference for a particular brand of corn flakes, and they say, "That's the best!" That's fair enough.

Maybe I am. What I mean is to say that all observed facts do share something in common with opinion, or the state of the mind. Perception, experiencing the universe is subjective, and hence nothing we see can be absolute. I discussed this before in fact vs value. Hence, observed "facts" cannot equate to absolute facts, which lie outside the mind.

But wouldn't it also be fair to say that the acknowledgment of truth is the acknowledgment of "any observable" element of reality? Say like being a "witness" to the glass which sits on the table? This is not what you mean by "subjective" now is it? Because the glass does actually exist, whether or not I may be the only one privy to it. Meaning if somebody else came along and saw the glass then they too would be a "witness" to the fact (truth) that it exists. Does that make any sense?

Hmm... Here you can see my two level definition of truth and facts. The idea that the glass is on the table is, to the observer a truth. But this doesn't mean that it is an absolute truth - the act of observation still forces it to be subjective. Rather, it is more probable to the witness that it is true than it is not. Another witness may confirm the sighting, but it is still not absolutely truth. What if three more witnesses appear to say the glass is not on the table? It seems that what is regarded as true by observation may not be in fact the truth - meaning that you can declare and define your own sense of truth, but it is impossible to acknowledge any absolute truth itself.
Does that vaguely make sense?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... Here you can see my two level definition of truth and facts. The idea that the glass is on the table is, to the observer a truth. But this doesn't mean that it is an absolute truth - the act of observation still forces it to be subjective. Rather, it is more probable to the witness that it is true than it is not. Another witness may confirm the sighting, but it is still not absolutely truth. What if three more witnesses appear to say the glass is not on the table? It seems that what is regarded as true by observation may not be in fact the truth - meaning that you can declare and define your own sense of truth, but it is impossible to acknowledge any absolute truth itself.
Does that vaguely make sense?

Wow! It sounds like everything's up for grabs! Why don't we just declare it the end of the world and go on a looting rampage then!

And what do you mean by subjective? Isn't the word "object" derived from "objective?" Meaning if you looked at something in terms of it being "an object," then aren't you looking at it objectively? Whereas the object then becomes subjective, but only to the "objective view," which occurs through you (field of view). In other words isn't objectivity basically the process of observation?

Aren't we in fact speaking about that which is observable from the outside (objectivity) versus that which is "experienced" on the inside (subjectivity) and is not readily observable from without?

 

[FZ+]

I probably should be stricter about my word use.

From my dictionary:
Subjective:
1. influenced by personal feelings (and therefore perhaps unfair).
2. existing only in the mind.
3. (tech grammar) of the subject.

Objective:
1. existing outside the mind.
2. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
3. (tech grammar) of the object.

So I seem right...
That reminds me... must raise to LG sooner or later about his gross abuse of the word objective in his mind hypothesis...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I probably should be stricter about my word use.

From my dictionary:
Subjective:
1. influenced by personal feelings (and therefore perhaps unfair).
2. existing only in the mind.
3. (tech grammar) of the subject.

Objective:
1. existing outside the mind.
2. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
3. (tech grammar) of the object.

So I seem right...
That reminds me... must raise to LG sooner or later about his gross abuse of the word objective in his mind hypothesis...

When I gave the example of the glass, that's what it means by being objective, because it exists outside of my mind, I can clearly see what it is, and it doesn't involve my personal feelings to acknowledge it. Otherwise your idea of objectivity is virtually unobtainable. Who is capable of objectivity then if it has to rely on an external source outside of the mind? We still have to rely on our abstract brains to interpret the information.

 

[FZ+]

Otherwise your idea of objectivity is virtually unobtainable.

Precisely! That is the heart of my argument. Total objectivity, absolute truth are hence unobtainable!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely! That is the heart of my argument. Total objectivity, absolute truth are hence unobtainable!

Then what is the point of being objective, if not to strive for the truth? ... Then you obviously aren't denying that total objectivity and absolute truth does not exist, just that it can't be experienced in human terms. Right?

Yet the quality of truth is ascertainable by virtue of the capacity of humans to experience objectivity, at least to some degree, and, as evidenced by the high regard we place on our ability to to this, then it must be regarded as highly desirable indeed.

So what does that speak about the Universe as a whole, since it seems to have an inherent need (through us) to establish cognizance and objectivity? Is it possible that there is someone or something that is capable of viewing the whole picture at a glance? You know, something there to spur us on to be creative as well. Why not? And why don't we seem to have much trouble conceiving of the whole Universe in our own minds? ... Yet how could that be, with something so finite as ourselves? Perhaps becasue we're not speaking about what is finite, but what is infinite instead?

 

[FZ+]

Then what is the point of being objective, if not to strive for the truth? ... Then you obviously aren't denying that total objectivity and absolute truth does not exist, just that it can't be experienced in human terms. Right?

Correct. But absolute understanding of truth is unreachable. That's my point.

Yet the quality of truth is ascertainable by virtue of the capacity of humans to experience objectivity, at least to some degree, and, as evidenced by the high regard we place on our ability to to this, then it must be regarded as highly desirable indeed.

Yes, truth is desirable. But you cannot measure the degree to which man does experience objectivity.

So what does that speak about the Universe as a whole, since it seems to have an inherent need (through us) to establish cognizance and objectivity?

Ah, now you have made a logical jump. Why must the curiosity of man, a survival value that made us so successful fit into an overarching pattern in the universe? Why do you consider humans so significant? Why can you transpose human values onto the universe? I have repeated that we do not establish objectivity, by rather by establishing cognizance we attempt to internalise objectivity. Going back to the first point, I assume total objectivity does exist, and if it exists, it must exist outside of us.

Is it possible that there is someone or something that is capable of viewing the whole picture at a glance?

Only if the universe itself is conscious, but of course in a different way from us. An awareness without a mind to lend subjectivity. Which is a possibility, but without any evidence, not a plausibility.

You know, something there to spur us on to be creative as well. Why not? And why don't we seem to have much trouble conceiving of the whole Universe in our own minds?

Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds. We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ah, now you have made a logical jump. Why must the curiosity of man, a survival value that made us so successful fit into an overarching pattern in the universe? Why do you consider humans so significant? Why can you transpose human values onto the universe? I have repeated that we do not establish objectivity, by rather by establishing cognizance we attempt to internalise objectivity. Going back to the first point, I assume total objectivity does exist, and if it exists, it must exist outside of us.

But we do it all the time, which is why I believe we are now coming into conflict with the environment.

Only if the universe itself is conscious, but of course in a different way from us. An awareness without a mind to lend subjectivity. Which is a possibility, but without any evidence, not a plausibility.

Well let's just say there were a creator, would there be a need for Him to be objective? Then again I guess He couldn't be anything but "wholly objective," in that the whole of Creation would be "subject to" Him.

Let me ask you this. Is the idea of God considered by science to be absolute? (if it were true). If so, then would the "absence of God" be considered an absolute as well? The reason why I'm asking this is because I don't believe it's possible to accept it either way, accept by putting the bits and pieces together and see if they add up. In which case science seems to be in favor of the "absence of God." And yet I think the problem of God is solvable, although I think it requires the need for a "different approach."

Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds. We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

But still the notion of it exists, and it isn't that difficult to imagine once we grasp the initial idea.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds. We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

I do not know the entire infinite series of pi, but still I can conjecture knowledge about the infinite series. For instance I can conjecture that this infinite series contains somewhere a series of 1000 successives digits of '0'. I don't know what place that series would start, but I do know, it exists.