Trick of the Language?

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Are you denying objective reality or not?

I am calling it into question. There is no question that the idea of objectivity has it's practical uses, but the common ground is biological and cultural conditioning. I do not believe that humans can experience anything outside the filter of their being, so to speak. In some strange cases, we know that observations depend on the expectations of the observer.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I like to say that facts are little theories because, like definitions, they rest on or emerge from conceptual contexts.

I agree with this. In a way, we can think of facts as the pieces of a puzzle. We can use the pieces to create any story we want, because we are the ones who decide when the picture is complete.
But the picture is never really complete. We have to augment what we know with what we believe, and continuously make adjustments. And once in a while some new piece of information is revealed that calls for us to revise rather central assumptions in our understanding. Copernicus made this happen. He turned everything up-side-down with the result that those who wanted to understand his work had to shed their assumptions and learn new ones.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Your wonderful phrase "I do not believe that humans can experience anything outside the filter of their being" is fundamentally equivalent to "Man is the measure of all things."

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

Your wonderful phrase "I do not believe that humans can experience anything outside the filter of their being" is fundamentally equivalent to "Man is the measure of all things."

That judgement would be all correct prevented you had a away of knowing for sure that there is a fundamental distinction in nature between human beings and all things themselves, a difference in the structuring itself, limiting human knowledge to specific human activity, on which case you would have to justify how any sort of "filter" is even in place...moreover the wording "filtering" presupposes something valid in itself which is being filtered...it admittedly points to a transcendental reality...speaking on interaction would be meaningless otherwise. The very same reasoning can be applied to the wording "negotiation" that Fresco is so keen to use...that which is intrinsically ours does not need to be mediated in any way. You might just as well jump all together to total solipsism and stay mute. You save time and energy !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

No. The filtering analogy is valid from the point of view of comparative physiology. We do not have to specify the nature of "that which is filtered" in order to recognize differential interactions with what we call "the universe". Now it may be the case that what we call "physiology" is itself limited in its application to particular epistemological domains exceeded by that realm we call "cognition", but this does not detract from the import of the empirical data so far obtained from physiology which casts doubt on reductionist views of "reality".

1 Reply

@fresco,

Why go comparative what is there to compare in a solipsist approach ? Any admitting distinction from A to B immediately objectify s a World even if only with agents (worst case scenario)...as the control is not exerted by any particular mind but sort of emerges out of a group of proponents, a "negotiating" mind is subjected and not imposing any sort of reality. Tell you more the very concept of "negotiation" without objects is stupid...who is in full control ?

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

In some strange cases, we know that observations depend on the expectations of the observer.

Perhaps you could elaborate on that. I assume you are referring to certain quantum mechanical models. We certainly do not know that quantum observations are dependent on an observer. We might just as easily say that all observation involves physical interaction with the observed. Just as any other interaction requires physical interaction.
Which experiments are you referring to?

1 Reply

@medium-density,

Quote:

Though I wait to be disabused of this interpretation by a sufficiently strong argument, of course.

Or in other words, disillusion you of your disillusionment, if I feel that your new understanding is illusory. Wink

0 Replies

@medium-density,

Quote:

Causation for me is a very loose concept which simply means things are implicated in the creation of other things. So a complicated route which consists of "loops/tangles of influence" is, to me, still a causal one. This somewhat all-encompassing definition is why free will has no traction for me as a philosophical idea. I just don't accept any definition of freedom which could apply to our sense/faculty of will.

So from your understanding, does prediction of events have any bearing on the 'causality' of the events? If the future state can only accurately predicted by understanding (modelling) of every interacting "entity"(particle/atom/neuron etc.) which is involved in a system, does this meet your definition of causality? This is a very very computationally complex problem to model. It would require a system "greater" informationally than itself.
Even if you assume that the universe/reality is deterministic, the expectation of predictability is untenable, and for more than just pragmatic reasons, for logical/number theoretic reasons as demonstrated by David Wolpert 2008.
PDF download
Summary
The most one could ever hope for in terms of application of intention is influence, never "control". Regardless of whether or not the universe is wholly deterministic or wholly random.
Randomness is a concept that has as yet only been defined informationally, by the way.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

So from your understanding, does prediction of events have any bearing on the 'causality' of the events?

You can't say that a cause can be shown to give rise to an effect and you can't say that without that cause the effect would appear... it's a paradox.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

We certainly do not know that quantum observations are dependent on an observer.

Perhaps it is better to say that observation affects the event, thereby destroying any hopes of real objectivity. That does seem to be the case in some experiments.

But beyond that, even in everyday life expectations modify what we observe.
What is a good day? Perhaps it is when the sun is hot and the wind is still, and there is no work to be done. But if you are going fishing, a grey sky is better, as it makes it harder for the fish to spot you on the riverbank. If you farm crops, a good day might be when it rains the hardest.
So each of these three, the man on vacation, the fisherman and the farmer looked out the window, each with different expectations. Was it a good day?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Perhaps it is better to say that observation affects the event, thereby destroying any hopes of real objectivity. That does seem to be the case in some experiments.

Certainly

That is the distinction (for me) between ontology and epistemology.
I have yet to be convinced that the impossibility of accurate prediction implies the non-existence of ontic reality.
Even from a functionalist definition of 'facts' the assumption of realism seems (to me) to have more predictive power.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I might add that elephants are the measure of all things...and the same for every other species of being. This is a perspective not a testable hypothesis.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Why stop there? Wink

Why not ants, or blades of grass, or clouds?
What does it take to have a perspective?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

And maybe objectivity is merely shared perspective. I feel that our cultural background gives us a pretty human-glorifying perspective.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

And maybe objectivity is merely shared perspective.

That view has it's adherents.

Quote:

I feel that our cultural background gives us a pretty human-glorifying perspective.

I wholeheartedly agree. That is one flaw of perspectives, bias.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I do feel that all experience--except for that of the most enlightened--is biased. I'm thinking of Nietzsche's perspectivism.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

I still am not sure what the non-arbitrary distinction is to decide who/what has a perspective, per Neithche's understanding.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I have yet to be convinced that the impossibility of accurate prediction implies the non-existence of ontic reality.

I am not arguing for the non-existence of ontic reality. I am merely disputing the belief that ontic reality is the origin of mind. The way I see it, the two must exist and evolve together. The complexity of the world we perceive relates to the complexity of that which we perceive it with.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

The complexity of the world we perceive relates to the complexity of that which we perceive it with.

Why would that be true? Even a stricly deterministic reality is theoretically unpredictable within reality weather or not consciousness exists.
Demonstrated by David Wolpert 2008.
PDF download
Summary

1 Reply

Trick of the Language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know