A question

Author: TheRealNihilist ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 157
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    How can you be objective when you are using something like senses which are dependent on the individual?

    Objective: (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

    Sense: A faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch.

    Individual: Of or for a particular person.

    I think this can go two ways. There can be more but these are the ones I am interested.
    You can be objective even if you are blind or deaf.
    There is a correct way of perceiving the world.
    Above are the claims I would want answered but if someone has a different claim then so be it. 
  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Senses are not subjective, your mind is subjective.  The senses are objective because your sensory organs don't have opinions.  They merely get stimulated and send signals.  So they're objective. 
  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Do you want me to move my previous points over here? I'm bored as heck today and totally down for a heated discussion 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Wrick-It-Ralph
    Let me word my question better.

  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    No probs
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Wrick-It-Ralph
    Done

  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I can only assume that by individual, you mean my mind or consciousness.  The answer is that the senses don't depend on the mind.  That's why they're objective.  Even if I had a brain with no consciousness, the signals from my senses would still fire, there just wouldn't be anything on the other end perceiving them.  While it's true that my perception is subjective, that doesn't matter because it's not changing anything that my senses are telling me. 

    Subjective merely means that it's MY assessment of reality from what I've perceived.  

    Objective means that which is, regardless of my assessment of it.  

    Since my senses are objective and the senses of other people are also objective, I can compare my subjective assessment with somebody else's to derive facts by which to tell when people are lying about their assessment.  

    If everybody actually sensed things differently, then it would be impossible to make this comparison.  Since that is not the case.  It logically follows that everybody's senses are roughly equal with maybe some small inconsistencies here or there cause by bad subjective assessment. 

    Being blind or deaf simply means that you have less sensory organs.  That means the amount of objective sense you can assess is lower, but the things that you can still assess with your remaining senses is still just as accurate as anyone else's.  

    When you say correct way of perceiving the world, you have to define correct.  Do you mean the best way for your survival?  The most accurate way in terms of navigating reality? Is it correct because even though it's not accurate it makes you moral somehow? I'm going to go with the second one until you define this better. 

    The correct way to view the world in this case would be pragmatically. If you're asking:  Do we view the world correctly?  Then the answer is always yes. 



  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Wrick-It-Ralph
    Since my senses are objective and the senses of other people are also objective, I can compare my subjective assessment with somebody else's to derive facts by which to tell when people are lying about their assessment.  
    That is if you both have the same level of senses right?
    Everyone does not have the same capability in senses.
    That means the amount of objective sense you can assess is lower, but the things that you can still assess with your remaining senses is still just as accurate as anyone else's.  
    Would you say that is hinders their ability to perceive the world and making the ought statement in order for people to perceive the world correctly they ought to not be missing any and are not hindered in anyway?
    When you say correct way of perceiving the world, you have to define correct.
    Best way to perceive the world. 
    Do we view the world correctly?
    Who is we? 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Wrick-It-Ralph
    I am going to change the question again just so I can be more specific. 
    Sorry been a long time since I really delved into this topic. 
  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    So by levels, you're referring to blind people again?  The answer is that I can compare any sense that another person has or had in the past and still remembers.  So I could explain an image to a blind person if they have spent enough time using their eyes before they were blind.  Although they probably wouldn't use the information as well.  

    If we're talking about two people with all the normal senses, then their is no level of senses besides maybe one person using a particular sense better, in which case, they could still compare senses, but one person might get a better subjective assessment out of the comparison than the other. 

    Well I can explain it without going to an ought statement.  the fact is just the reason for the ought, it's not the ought itself. 

    I would say that yes it hinders their ability to observe the world to a degree. I don't see how this would get us to solipsism.  This is a far cry from not trusting reality, all this tells us is that some people will be better at sensing it. 

    Saying "Best" has the same problem.  Best by what standard?  How about this.  Would you agree that each of us only gets to perceive the world one way and that makes it the best way by default? 

    It's the royal we.  It's like saying "Does one view the world correctly?"

  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    That's cool.  This is how we get the best answers. 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Wrick-It-Ralph
    I can't edit this one because I think there is a time limit so I will just have the question here.

    How do we know what we are perceiving is true?

    Perceive: become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
    True: In accordance with fact or reality.

    I guess that is it. Had more to say but can't put my finger on it. Will bring it in if I do remember. 
  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    I'm going to try to give you a thorough answer here. 

    So by true, me and you would have to assume that something is true when it accurately describes reality,  Because the actual state of reality is the only truth. 

    What we see is not exactly reality.  think of it like a mold of reality.  The images we see, for instance are basically photons that all simultaneously bounce off of our eyes to produce a stimulus which then presents itself as a an image based of the shape of what bounced off the eye.  Those photons came from a real object which sent specific waves of light at us and our eyes takes those waves and color code them for us.  Technically speaking.  This little slice of reality that we're viewing actually existed in that form for a second, but our mind filtered it to make it easier to view.  If all we seen was what reality actually looked like, it would be impossible for us to navigate the universe.  Furthermore, it would be impossible to see anything using a method that didn't use light. 

    The key thing here is that it is consistent and reliable.  These senses are the reason we're alive and the facts that we draw from them are true based on the fact that we assess what we sense and define the consistencies and inconsistencies.  So what I point at a rock and call it a rock.  It's true because I have decided that the word rock refers to bundles on minerals and I also defined what a bundle and a mineral is etc. etc. So that's a truth by identity.  Then we have truths with states of affairs.  If I say "this pen will drop" and I've defined dropping as what we see as gravity, then it's true because it conforms with the definition.  If I say "this pen will drop" using the same definition I just mentioned and then let go of it and it just floats there, then it's not true. 

    So in summation, what we see is true. 


  • MrMaestro
    MrMaestro avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 35
    0
    0
    4
    MrMaestro avatar
    MrMaestro
    --> @TheRealNihilist @Wrick-It-Ralph
    This is a pretty interesting topic. 

    Ralph contends that biological senses are objective because we can all agree (for the most part), on what things look like, smell like, etc.

    There's a counter-example here though, the idea that "your red is the same as my red" is not necessarily true. My idea of red could just as easily be your idea of blue: https://www.livescience.com/21275-color-red-blue-scientists.html

    Although being colorblind myself I could just be biased :)

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @MrMaestro @Wrick-It-Ralph
    I guess so but I think Wrick-It-Ralph would say that is not the best way of perceiving the world or it is not reliable or consistent since most people are not colour-blind. 
    Don't know how to respond because even that question I could have framed better. Don't know what I really meant. Guess I have to do a dumpster dive on DDO to find what I meant before. 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    I am going to be even more edgy with this one.
    My very first debate guess I didn't have to look that far. 

    We cannot prove our existence. 

    Prove: Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
    Existence: The fact or state of living or having objective reality.


    An example of this would be chess.
    To correctly pay chess we would need to know the rules.
    Without knowing the rules we wouldn't correctly know what each piece is or does.
    Without knowing the rules of life we do not know something like if we exist or not.

    The example is that we are the chess pieces perceiving reality. We don't know the rules. I could be making the case for the creator but lets not talk about that. Whoever looks down at us would know the rules since they are looking into the world not impacted by while being in the world. 

  • MrMaestro
    MrMaestro avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 35
    0
    0
    4
    MrMaestro avatar
    MrMaestro
    --> @TheRealNihilist @Wrick-It-Ralph
    I think you can form objective opinions out of subjective experiences. 

    A scientist can still do science with crappy lab equipment. The measurements might be prone to errors and subject to misinterpretation, however, this doesn't mean the scientist can't create empirical evidence. Similarly, the measurements the scientist reads will be subjective, in the sense that they are distorted by the man's perception of reality.


    I guess it's not a perfect analogy but you get the idea.


  • MrMaestro
    MrMaestro avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 35
    0
    0
    4
    MrMaestro avatar
    MrMaestro
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    "I think therefore I am" - Descartes


  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @MrMaestro
    You know it's funny.  My sister posed the color scenario to me one night when we were drinking before I had ever studied anything about philosophy and I intuitively had an answer and I quote myself. 

    "If people were seeing different colors then we could have them each sort the spectrum of colors by brightness and if they weren't seeing them the same, it would produce different results" -- Past Ralph. 

    Good job me.  Now past me was expedient and didn't consider the possibility of seeing slightly different shades or hues of colors.  On hues it would still be possible to use the test from before.  But on shades, all you would have to do is construct a subset of the test for each color in the spectrum.  So you have a subject look at a bunch of different shades of yellow, then blue, then red, etc. and just map the consistencies.  So that's my answer to the color problem. 

    Furthermore, colors are just waves of light, so they don't actually exist as colors.  Even if people did see different colors.  That would just mean that we're not good at making judgements about colors.  It wouldn't exclude our other senses. Just our "sense of color"  if you will. 

    Also.  My claim isn't that senses are reliable because of other people.  My argument is that senses are reliable because they're consistent and repeatable.  They're objective because the senses are just nerves firing and can't be affected by opinion and that by comparing our opinions, we can tell when someone is lying about their senses or if they had different senses.  Evidence tells us that our senses are more or less the same with maybe some negligible differences. 

  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Well lets keep in mind that the word existence is define by us humans.  Now once we have defined the word in relation to reality, then we can know if something does or does not exist. So physically.  I exist.  My brain exist and my consciousness is an extension of my brain, so I exist.

    Descartes get more props than me though because he said it succinctly and made the rest of us look dumb with our long sentences, lol. 


  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @MrMaestro
    What you stated was a correlation not a causation. Thinking doesn't mean we exist since we can't test for it. That was the first thing the other person brought up as well. 
  • MrMaestro
    MrMaestro avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 35
    0
    0
    4
    MrMaestro avatar
    MrMaestro
    --> @TheRealNihilist @Wrick-It-Ralph
    There's actually a really interesting video about this subject that's been stuck in my mind for months now. The premise is that "You are (probably) not you". It shows how almost all of our preferences/actions can be defined as somewhat involuntary. The conclusion is that you (conscious, decision-making, personality-having you) don't really have a center.

    I'd highly recommend checking it out (only 7 minutes, and it's pretty funny).

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Wrick-It-Ralph
    Well lets keep in mind that the word existence is define by us humans.
    I gave a definition of objective reality.

    So physically.  I exist.  My brain exist and my consciousness is an extension of my brain, so I exist.
    I defined it as objective reality. Do you exist?

  • Wrick-It-Ralph
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 436
    2
    7
    9
    Wrick-It-Ralph avatar
    Wrick-It-Ralph
    --> @MrMaestro
    On your science analogy.  I would say that the result you get on the broken equipment is still objective because it is presented to you the same way no matter what.  Even though the data that the scientist gets is ultimately wrong, it's consistently wrong which means that all of the wrong data will fit perfectly with itself as long as the scientist never uses a different tool to verify it.  

    There's also a solution to this problem.  The scientist can have more than one copy of the equipment to ensure the quality of the relative equipment.  It's actually an interesting thought experiment, but it ties into what I was talking about with Omar before you jumped in here.  If something is consistently wrong then you can still use it as a tool.  As long as the tool is doing what I want it to do, it doesn't really matter how I perceive it.  If using what looks like a hammer drives in what looks like a nail, I don't have to believe the hammer or the nail to be true to use them nor do I have to view them correctly, as long as my view of reality is congruent to reality, then it's still reliable.  
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,896
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @MrMaestro @Wrick-It-Ralph
    I would like to see Wrick-It-Raplh's response to that.