Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 10:09 am
@fresco,
Only if he maintains enough individual identity to call himself a non-dualist Smile
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 10:19 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Quote:
If he said that he was wrong


I challenge you to define "wrong" without begging the question of "objective reality".


Well, apparently you (and Searle) think Searle is right. So, both you and he must be begging the same question. So we are even.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 12:14 pm
@kennethamy,
No. I am saying that "right" and "wrong" have no place in a discussion of "reality". The question, as JLN correctly identifies is whether the dimension "subjective-objective" is helpful within ontological analysis to which the answer seems to be "no". It is both facile and inappropriate.
And note that this is also what makes associated discussions based on "objective truth values" like "the necessary truth of any truth"(etc) so mind-bogglingly boring and ludicrous.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 12:36 pm
@Cyracuz,
Touche' !
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 12:41 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

No. I am saying that "right" and "wrong" have no place in a discussion of "reality".


Is that right?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 12:51 pm
@kennethamy,
Yes... in the same way that, say, discussions of a "male-female" dichotomy have no place at the level of discussion of "the essence of life".
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 Aug, 2010 11:56 pm
Quantum Physics would say 'yes and no,' because it states that the objective reality is CAUSED by the subjective observer, but can't quite say why.

I believe yes.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 12:02 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Yes... in the same way that, say, discussions of a "male-female" dichotomy have no place at the level of discussion of "the essence of life".


So the statement that right and wrong have no place in discussions of reality is- right? I suppose then that your statement that right and wrong have no place in discussions of reality is not saying something about reality. Is that right?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 01:56 am
@kennethamy,
I am not interested in playing your word games.
You need to understand the background for the development of non-binary logic, i.e. the failure of static set theory applied to dynamic systems , in order to talk sensibly (out of the box) about the concept of "reality". You have failed to recognize that your own argument predicated on "the macro-level" has underscored its parochial nature. If instead, you were to investigate why ""macro and micro levels" might constitute a significant difference, you may be on your way to actually "doing philosophy".

Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 11:14 am
@kennethamy,
Quote:
So the statement that right and wrong have no place in discussions of reality is- right? I suppose then that your statement that right and wrong have no place in discussions of reality is not saying something about reality. Is that right?


Talk about chasing your own tail... Regardless of whatever the answer to your question would be, what would it teach you? Smile
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 06:20 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I am not interested in playing your word games.
You need to understand the background for the development of non-binary logic, i.e. the failure of static set theory applied to dynamic systems , in order to talk sensibly (out of the box) about the concept of "reality". You have failed to recognize that your own argument predicated on "the macro-level" has underscored its parochial nature. If instead, you were to investigate why ""macro and micro levels" might constitute a significant difference, you may be on your way to actually "doing philosophy".




yet the idea what kennthamy is saying holds true though fundamentally

while true , right and wrong in the primative world the , WILD , hold true

in an advanced thinking being that gets beyond shear primativness of life actions

a more advanced being sees right and wrong as sound thinking , thought , towards their own survival ( and not under any circumstances based on religion(s) )
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 01:29 am
@north,
Sorry, I'm not with you. Are you suggesting we are discussing "value judgements" ? My context for this argument is about coherence of abstract mathematical structures which underline "truth values". A consideration of the dynamics might suggest for example that "action" might be bi-directional as in "action" being the existential complement of "reaction" (neither being a priori). A familiar example of this might be consideration of the "observer" interacting with/ determining "the observed" in quantum mechanics. It is such cases which lead to reflection on micro versus macro levels of "reality".

Note also that in discussing "survival", some authors (Maturana et al) define "life" as a a dynamic system which adapts to perturbations to its structure. There is no "right" or "wrong" for the organism per se, only "alive" or "dead". It is only in the realm of third party verbal observation that "right" and "wrong" (successful vs unsuccessful adaptations) exist, but such "observation" is divorced from "survival activities" per se, since the actual organism being observed has "no choice".
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 10:24 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Sorry, I'm not with you. Are you suggesting we are discussing "value judgements" ? My context for this argument is about coherence of abstract mathematical structures which underline "truth values". A consideration of the dynamics might suggest for example that "action" might be bi-directional as in "action" being the existential complement of "reaction" (neither being a priori). A familiar example of this might be consideration of the "observer" interacting with/ determining "the observed" in quantum mechanics. It is such cases which lead to reflection on micro versus macro levels of "reality".


objective reality is beyond mathematics

objective reality is what goes on when we don't exist

objective reality then is fundamentaly founded on substance

Quote:
Note also that in discussing "survival", some authors (Maturana et al) define "life" as a a dynamic system which adapts to perturbations to its structure. There is no "right" or "wrong" for the organism per se, only "alive" or "dead". It is only in the realm of third party verbal observation that "right" and "wrong" (successful vs unsuccessful adaptations) exist, but such "observation" is divorced from "survival activities" per se, since the actual organism being observed has "no choice".


to thinking , therefore advanced Beings such as US , Humanity , has always a choice , we are not just about survival
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 11:11 pm
@north,
Quote:
objective reality is what goes on when we don't exist


What do you have to offer to give that notion any more substance than the concept of vengeful god? There is no sound logical explanation that validates the claim that there is such a thing as objective reality. There are, however, many indications that there is not, that reality is better described as relationships between/within phenomenon with both observer and observed attributes. It may be that consciousness is a more fundamental element of reality than physical objects.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 11:22 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
objective reality is what goes on when we don't exist


Quote:
What do you have to offer to give that notion any more substance than the concept of vengeful god?


eh.. ( I'm Canadian you know )


Quote:
There is no sound logical explanation that validates the claim that there is such a thing as objective reality.


because they don't use reason

logic is the consequence of reason and is the conclusion of that reasoning
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 11:32 pm
@north,
You hiding behind your nationality on this is just discriminating towards canadians...

How do you justify your belief in objective reality?
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2010 11:36 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

You hiding behind your nationality on this is just discriminating towards canadians...


I was just having a little humour

[quote} How do you justify your belief in objective reality?
[/quote]

how havn't I ?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Nov, 2010 07:24 pm
@north,
In the same way that I haven't told you that I am your mother.

You said that objective reality is beyond mathematics.

That it is what happens when we don't exist.

But there just isn't any foundation upon which you can base those claims. "Objective reality" is an unnecesary concept, ineffable by definition, and as justifiable in terms of what it is possible to know with certainty as any concept of god.
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 01:04 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:


Quote:
You said that objective reality is beyond mathematics.


it is


Quote:
That it is what happens when we don't exist.


it is , we are of the objective reality


Quote:
But there just isn't any foundation upon which you can base those claims. "Objective reality" is an unnecesary concept, ineffable by definition, and as justifiable in terms of what it is possible to know with certainty as any concept of god.


the objective reality is the reality which needs not our observation of

the Universe and all that there is in it

the foundation is based on the fact that life cannot become anywhere , such as the moon , therefore our planet which is condusive to life had to be here before any form of life could become

and that in order for life to manifest into forms, life draws from the Earth materials ( minerals for example ) in which to become manifest
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 01:11 pm
@north,
Quote:
the foundation is based on the fact that life cannot become anywhere , such as the moon , therefore our planet which is condusive to life had to be here before any form of life could become


Some say that life on this planet couldn't have existed without the moon. You are perhaps fooled by locality. There is no way you can say with certainty that a star hundres of lighyears away has no consequence for life on this planet. For all we know, they are directly linked. I do not accept your reasoning as proof of objetive reality.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 04:40:24