-->
@MrMaestro
The video you first mentioned actually reminded me of Vsauce video and he explains how that we are constantly remade and therefore not "Actually" what we were. Idr how long it takes for nerve cells to regrow though.
A question
Posts
Total:
157
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
1)
I would consider 'collective subjectivity' beside my point of objectivity.
Take spacetime for example. It is both subjective and 'collectively subjective', yet the "reality" of it is objective. Everyone experiences it.
2)
That's partly why I said language (not "words"). Although a language could hypothetically just be subjective, you would be intentionally missing my point.
Your short hand would also be objective because more than one person experiences it.
-->
@Reece
Well I don't think a collective subjective would be objective in any way. A collective subject would just be a shared opinion that may be true or false. You could think of some religious views as collectives. I'm not going to single out any specific one for sake of respect because this is not a religious discussion.
there can be states of affairs where the subjective, the collective subjective, and the objective are all the same thing. For example.
Bob believes X. Bob's Church believes X. X is objectively true. X could be gravity in this case, or some similar thing.
Well words themselves are just sounds or groups of letters depending on the medium. So I think we're in agreement there.
I would definitely call language a collective subjective. It's not objective because it actually does depend on our opinions. If everybody agreed that. "Pizza" and "rock" need to switch places and society adopted it. It would be the case. Now the fact that we chose that word is an objective fact. But the usage is arbitrary and we chose it.
As for shorthand. It's subjective If I only use it for myself, because nobody on earth will be likely to have the same shorthand or no what it means. If My short hand is used for something industrial, it's likely that people use similar shorthand to me. Like if I'm flow writing for a debate. Most people who flow write in debates probably have similar shorthand, so that's a collective subjective because it depends on our opinions but in some cases our opinions over lap. Everybody always uses MPP for modus ponen for insteance.
If I did miss your point. I can assure it that it wasn't intentional. It seemed to me that you were either saying that some cases of objectivity come from multiple subjectives or your were saying that all objectivity comes from subjectives. Either way. I wouldn't agree. Objective, by definition, means that it's true apart from human opinion. So a collective subjective is not the same thing as objectivity in all cases. In the cases that it is the same. It's not because the subjective created the objective, it's actually more likely to be the other way around. The objective influenced the collective subjective.
.
I was just wrapping up my comments for the night so I'll respond to this tomorrow if you're still interested by then, lol. Have a good night everyone!!
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Subjective: Self
Objective: Two or more
Absolute: No matter what
Note: Keep in mind of quantum mechanics and wave function collapse.
You conflate objectivity with absolute like many people do.
Objectivity can be true or false. It depends on the context. When talking about science and objective facts, it would lean more on the side of truth. Science doesn't require faith unlike religious beliefs.
Bob believes X. Bob's Church believes X. X is objectively true. X could be gravity in this case, or some similar thing.
Like I've stated before: subjectivity and objectivity aren't mutually exclusive. But what you call "objectively true" I would consider absolutely true which I don't believe in. I think "collective subjectivity" and objectivity are on the same level, but they're just describing two different aspects of the same phenomenon.
Objective, by definition, means that it's true apart from human opinion.
No. Objective, by definition, means that it's true (or false) apart from p͟e͟r͟s͟o͟n͟a͟l opinion.
Like I've said, you conflate objectivity with absolute
-->
@Reece
Well, I personally do conflate them because I don't believe in the metaphysical. But other people aren't and I'll explain why.
Your definition of objective is not correct in relation to the popular definition. If you want to use it that way, it's your choice, but you're going to be misunderstood.
Subjective is my account of reality, it is pretty close to objective, but I might forget or not notice details or add my feelings in and it will distort the story.
Objective means that we all experience it the same way apart from our opinions or distortions. Your definition is overly simplistic and opens the door for pseudo science.
Absolute / Metaphysical / intrinsic / Etc. Mean how it actually is apart from our experience.
So subjective is feelings.
Objective is experience
and Absolute is actual.
This is the way people use this terms. Since words are defined ad populum, that makes you the one who is wrong.
Like I said. I don't subscribe to this. To me, objective and metaphysical are one and the same. But I have unpopular views about things.
-->
@Reece
Really it doesn't matter what words we use except for the sake of practicality. We're talking about the same things and just using different words and probably arriving at different conclusions from them. Are you the person who said that the perception is the self?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
How can we see things in a different quality but that does not impact what we see?We see things with different levels of quality, but we don't see things differently. The only thing that is different is our opinions and distinct physical features. You might have better eyes, but both of our eyes do the same thing.
No they were created to see. Now that I have been subjected to this environment my eyesight has been reduced? Are you telling me my reduced eyesight doesn't have a part to play in how I see things differently? Basically eyes are required in seeing. My eyesight is worse therefore my view of the world is different in the world. What am I saying that is not correct?
I'm not proving the apple, the apple is proving itself to me.
You are not the apple self identifying yourself you are instead looking from the outside. We are inside what we are proving. How can you even do this?
We are not our senses. We are our perception.
Okay. We are our perception which requires our senses.
I would at least know some of the rules.
What rules?
Are they objective or subjective?
So to say we can't know anything about the outside forces is simply false.
You used what was already inside the world to make rules not outside forces.
In a game God is trying to k*ll you.
You wouldn't know this and as the game progresses you may know it to be the case.
God does not appear in person but does summon natural disasters in order to try to k*ll you.
Would you know it is God?
Existence is not an assumption and we can and have proved it.
Can you prove it?
Existence is defined in such a way that humans exist.
No we defined existence in a certain a way to include us.
If I were God and I never met a human for some reason, then I wouldn't even know that god was a word. I would call myself what I called myself and it would be true by identity.
Isn't in some way how we use words to define things? We don't know what they actually mean we are using what we have to make the meaning. Is that correct?
It's more like the skill trees in Sky Rim. You have a bunch of starting points and there are places where they branch off and not every branch is connect with the same base. If you want to ultimately derive it, Everything would converge at perception. But that would be the only ubiquitous connection in the tree.
Use more game examples. The bachelor one didn't work.
As a player playing Skyrim we know we have skill points in the game but if we were in the game would we know it is "skill points" or the exact meaning of it?
Why would everything converge to perception?
The force is random and has not mind. In this case, we would probably see enough instances of it to have a hint of something going on, but it would probably remain a mystery for a long time if not forever.
In that mystery could we be wrong about our existence?
Lets say we do unlock the majority of the mind and we have enough proof to save we are living in a matrix. Would want we know before be true in that time or was it always wrong?
If the force is an intelligent agent that is able to pop in and out of reality on a whim, it would necessarily follow that the entity would have no way of perceiving us without at stepping into our reality first.
What if it is an illogical being that can bend its reality to its whim?
So every time it pops in, it would have a random chance of winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time
I don't know how you got to this. If the creator created the world wouldn't the creator know what is in the world without it being based on randomness?
I would say we could never know much of anything about his being unless it was by pure chance and maybe we caught it in a cage or it decided it wanted to meet us, etc. But this requires piles and piles of assumptions.
Yes piles of assumptions but lets say someone saw God appear into this world and also had it recorded do you think scientists and archaeologists would be capable of understanding it?
A, seems more plausible but would be way more easy to detect. We'd probably have enough information for a conspiracy theory to pop out of it.
But then we are deriving strict meaning from a random force. Are you saying it is not truly random only random until we understand it?
B doesn't even seem remotely plausible, but I can't technically say it's impossible. So score one for you I guess.
It would require an hypothetical like the first one but I can make it plausible.
God gets into the world knowing no-one would see how God got in.
With our existence over no-one knew that God was living among us.
Would this hypothetical be correct?
That doesn't change that what we do know about gravity is a metaphysical truth.
How much of a percentage is it true for it to be a metaphysical one?
It works exactly how we predict that it will every time anybody in the history of the world has ever tested. Not one time ever has it failed. That makes it metaphysical until someone proves otherwise.
Oh so we deem it to be true until someone finds out something that we were missing out gravity. Wouldn't that in a sense mean we are attributing things that are consistent as fact but we don't really know because we are still learning about the world or we may never know?
I'm Just going to send you a link about tautologies, because you're not going to believe me if I don't show you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
The things that tautology didn't really help me understand your position because I didn't know what it was.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Objective means that we all experience it the same way apart from our opinions or distortions.
That's roughly how I see it.
Your definition is overly simplistic and opens the door for pseudo science.
How do you think I'm actually defining it?
And
1) How is it overly simplistic?
2) How does it open the door for pseudo science?
So subjective is feelings.Objective is experienceand Absolute is actual.This is the way people use this terms. Since words are defined ad populum, that makes you the one who is wrong.Like I said. I don't subscribe to this. To me, objective and metaphysical are one and the same. But I have So subjective is feelings.
So why are you using it as an argument to say I'm wrong even though you don't subscribe to it?
Would you consider yourself a solipsist?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I don't understand.
You say:
"I don't believe in the metaphysical."
"Objective and metaphysical are one and the same."
"Objective is experience."
How do you reconcile them?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It does impact it. But impact doesn't automatically make it wrong.
Who said anything about self identifying? I said it proves itself, not identifies itself. Only a thinking agent can identify something. The identity doesn't matter in this case. the apple shows itself, which proves it's something. then I name it and assess it's objective qualities
Sure, I'm cool with that. We are perception and we definitely do rely on our senses.
Well if you mean rules like the literal rules of chess, then they're subjective but the application of the rules is objective.
If you mean rules like the laws of physics. Then those are just plain objective. Even metaphysical in some cases.
That would be heavily situational. It really depends on how smart the god is.
Well my existence is proven to me by self evidence and so is yours to you. Beyond that, you get to the rest by science or whatever logical method you prefer assuming it's sound. As for the part of it not being an assumption. I can prove it without assuming anything because existence presents itself around me even when I make no assumptions about anything. Even If I walked around my whole life disbelieving every single thing that I seen in the manner an absolute skeptic would, I would still be receiving constant proofs of the things around me.
Yes it includes us, therefore we exist. because it's true by definition.
Well if we're making it a direct mirror of reality, then Skill trees would be beliefs and the avatar would be us, so the avatar would know the skills trees are there just like beliefs are there.
Everything converges at perception because of the infinite regress. Each belief needs a justification, but that justification needs a justification and so goes the infinite regress. At this point there has to be a stopping point. Now in my example, there are multiple stopping points and that's cool with me because I believe in self evidence so no problem here. But someone like you who wants their proof to be perfectly linear will want to derive those base proofs because you still wouldn't think they're true because you don't believe in self evidence. So then they all keep pulling back and that inevitably funnels into your consciousness because that's what you're using to derive the logic. For me this is just further proof, but for you this is a problem. Because now you're stuck at your consciousness which could prove itself, but you won't let it, so now you're stuck with an axiom and a hard case of solipsism. I hope that explains it.
No we'd still be right about it in that scenario. The fact that the god has to hide from us means that it can never have enough effect to mess with reality on a grand scale. Even if it messed with reality, it would have to be in short bursts and only the victims would feel like they don't exist.
On the matrix thing. First. Lots of assumptions there but I'll still bite. Our perception would be reliable, but it was being interfered with by a 3rd party. Probably another living organism like us or I guess a robot and once we got out we'd be in the same boat we're in now.
If we get to an Omni god, Then you're talking about magic and that's where my logical generosity would end, lol. Just being honest.
You're assuming it would know, but you're not using science. To see you need light, to interact with light you need to exist. To exist you need to pop into reality. Therefore, it can't see until it enters existence.
They would understand whatever they could derive from the data. There's too many variables to know how much impact it would have. It could range from no proof at all to all the proof in the world.
I said we could detect a random force. I didn't say we could get anything useful out of it. The only thing we could know is that we don't know how it works and it happens and we MIGHT be able to possibly know where it won't be depending on what kind of random it is. That's about it.
That could be correct. If magic was real, so no.
For something to be metaphysical, it's percentage must be at or above physical. For something to be a metaphysical truth. It has to be 100%
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. I'll put it this way. Even if gravity stopped working right now, it has been so painfully consistent that it is still more likely that gravity does work and something is temporarily interfering with it. All I can say beyond this is when something produces a 100% accurate results since the beginning of known history and you reject it, then you're a fool.
Well I don't know what to tell you. You don't want to take the easy route to self evidence, so unless you're going to learn how propositional logic works, then there is no other path to this. All of the evidence is screaming in your face and you're ignoring it. There is no link, no proof, and no question, that can fix a broken belief. You either need learn to let go of your presuppositions or you can live your life thinking that you're in an illusion, your choice.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Send less quotes. I don't even have enough letters to answer your questions and I'm having to delete stuff. Half your questions are just different versions of the same questions, Just put them together.
-->
@Reece
Okay, just to make this easy on you. Focus less on the metaphysical not existing, and more on the they mean the same thing. What I'm basically saying here is they're the same world and when I say that metaphysical doesn't exist. I mean that there is no category for metaphysical. So the word exist. But it's identical to objective to me.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You know what. I've answered quite enough questions. I think it's your turn to ante up and explain what you believe for a change.
1. Is reality subjective?
2. How do you know?
3. Is that reason subjective?
4. Does that mean your proof of subjectivity is subjective?
5. How do you prove that proof?
6. Is the proof for that proof subjective?
7. Does that mean your proof of your subjective proof of subjectivity is also subjective?
Time to prove your claims good sir.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Objective means that we all experience it the same way apart from our opinions or distortions.
That's roughly how I see it.
Your definition is overly simplistic and opens the door for pseudo science.
How do you think I'm actually defining it?
And
1) How is it overly simplistic?
2) How does it open the door for pseudo science?
So subjective is feelings.Objective is experienceand Absolute is actual.This is the way people use this terms. Since words are defined ad populum, that makes you the one who is wrong.Like I said. I don't subscribe to this. To me, objective and metaphysical are one and the same. But I have unpopular views about things.
So why are you using it as an argument to say I'm wrong even though you don't subscribe to it?
Would you consider yourself a solipsist?
EDIT: Sorry about the quote.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
1. Is reality subjective?
Relative to who is seeing it.
2. How do you know?
I am not experiencing the same thing as you.
3. Is that reason subjective?
It is relative so don't think it fits in either category. Can't believe I forgot about the world relative.
4. Does that mean your proof of subjectivity is subjective?
It is not based on personal feelings. I am sure if I trust the person taking the picture and me taking the picture every single second of my life by just blinking. The film reel of our life would be different.
5. How do you prove that proof?
I think I did before but in the real world I guess someone can take a picture every 24 hours and we would both be experiences different parts of this world. So pictures lots of them.
6. Is the proof for that proof subjective?
I have to assume yes but if we assume the same things it should be fine and agree photography is enough evidence to state we are experiencing different things.
7. Does that mean your proof of your subjective proof of subjectivity is also subjective?
Pictures would be my proof of people experiencing different parts of this world.
-->
@Reece
Cool so we're in agreement on the concept of it at least. That's the important part.
1) Your definition was "2 or more people" That means I can get two people together and now I have objectivity. That doesn't follow because
A) Objectivity is suppose to be apart from opinion
B) Objectivity is suppose to be consistent in all time and all places and this system could produce contradictory truths. which is bad.
2) Once I can get two or more people together to prove a truth. I can prove anything, including pseudo science. So now every god exist, so does the tooth fairy, Santa, Unicorns, Realicorns, Supercorns (Made that one up but all I need is two people). Yeah. I would say that door is pretty wide open.
I wasn't using it as an argument against you. I was trying to help you with the definitions so you can communicate with people better in debates. I'm all for personal definitions and I use them often, but What I've learned in a debate is that if you want to actually get points across, you need to speak a language that people can understand or you'll get blown out of the water every time because nobody is going to follow what you say and that will make them not believe you. This is all my opinion so take it how you like.
Relative to who is seeing it.
Lets try this again. It's a yes or no question. Is your reality subjective? (based how you see the world)
I am not experiencing the same thing as you.
False, you can't know what I'm experiencing. Try again.
It is relative so don't think it fits in either category. Can't believe I forgot about the world relative.
Everything is either subjective or objective. It's a yes or no question. I don't know what you mean by relative and it doesn't matter because we're only figuring out objective and subjective right now. Prove this part then we can move onto that.
It is not based on personal feelings. I am sure if I trust the person taking the picture and me taking the picture every single second of their life by just blinking. The film reel of our life would be different.
So that's a no and it's false. If your senses are subjective like you say and you're proving them with your senses, then your proof is also subjective.
I think I did before but in the real world I guess someone can take a picture every 24 hours and we would both be experiences different parts of this world. So pictures lots of them.
So you don't have proof for it then. Interesting. taking a picture in two different spots is proof of nothing. I don't even know what logic you're using to count this as proof. Haven't you ever heard of repeatable results or control groups? Get some science in your head please.
I have to assume yes but if we assume the same things it should be fine and agree photography is enough evidence to state we are experiencing different things.
So now we've revealed that all of your proof is subjective and your base proof is an assumption.
Pictures would be my proof of people experiencing different parts of this world.
So you're using the pictures to prove the pictures that proved the other pictures?
So this is a great example of why your position is flawed. You claimed earlier today that you could topple my position easily. You spent all day failing to do so and when I finally come at your foundation it crumbles like toothpicks. Are you ready to concede that maybe your thought process might have a flaw in it?
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Lets try this again. It's a yes or no question. Is your reality subjective? (based how you see the world)
Yes. How is it not?
False, you can't know what I'm experiencing. Try again.
Take a picture of what you are seeing right now and I will assume it to be true.
I don't know what you mean by relative
I mean we can't exactly see the entire world but we can see where we are if we have eyes.
If your senses are subjective like you say and you're proving them with your senses, then your proof is also subjective.
I would say my mind is subjective and when I use my senses I would have to use my mind to recognise what I am seeing. So I would say the senses don't have feelings but my mind does and my senses would need to past that in order for us to use it.
Haven't you ever heard of repeatable results or control groups? Get some science in your head please
Okay then I multiple pictures in an hour then wait when I am in the same spot again and take the same picture multiple of times.
So now we've revealed that all of your proof is subjective and your base proof is an assumption.
Yeah it starts of subjective. I make standards from what I know to make sure what I am saying is correct.
So you're using the pictures to prove the pictures that proved the other pictures?
Yes like how with repeatable data uses initial data to repeat the test over and over again and would like to expect the same result.
Are you ready to concede that maybe your thought process might have a flaw in it?
Do you agree you are using axioms that you cannot prove in order to build logic upon?
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'll respond after I take my kid to school.
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Cool so we're in agreement on the concept of it at least. That's the important part.1) Your definition was "2 or more people" That means I can get two people together and now I have objectivity. That doesn't follow becauseA) Objectivity is suppose to be apart from opinion
Objectivity is suppose to be apart from p͟e͟r͟s͟o͟n͟a͟l opinion. It isn't that personal if it's shared. Aren't the two of us, who are in agreement, objective?
B) Objectivity is suppose to be consistent in all time and all places and this system could produce contradictory truths. which is bad.
So you wouldn't consider religion or science objective? Neither religion or science for that matter are up to those standards. Though science is more reliably true.
Objectivity for me can produce both truths and falsehoods. All that is required is a common (shared) belief.
2) Once I can get two or more people together to prove a truth. I can prove anything, including pseudo science. So now every god exist, so does the tooth fairy, Santa, Unicorns, Realicorns, Supercorns (Made that one up but all I need is two people). Yeah. I would say that door is pretty wide open.
I believe you're more rational than that.
Can you please not strawman.
I wasn't using it as an argument against you. I was trying to help you with the definitions so you can communicate with people better in debates. I'm all for personal definitions and I use them often, but What I've learned in a debate is that if you want to actually get points across, you need to speak a language that people can understand or you'll get blown out of the water every time because nobody is going to follow what you say and that will make them not believe you. This is all my opinion so take it how you like.
I try to stay simple.
-->
@Reece
Objective truth =;I try to stay simple.
...1} what is being processed ex photon of specific frequency, and,
....2} how it is being processed by biologic animal, plant fungus, bacteria etc.
Both are objectively true irrespective if the resultant after processing is the same for each biologic.
Differrent molecules reflect photon as specific frequency of color ergo the objective source.
Differrent molecules observe, via various processes, the incoming photon of what ever specific frequency of color.
Vipers see { process } infra-red humans dont
..."Infrared is usually divided into 3 spectral regions: near, mid and far-infrared.
...The boundaries between the near, mid and far-infrared regions are not agreedupon and can vary. The main factor that determines which wavelengths are included in each of these three infrared regions is the typeof detector --{--i,e. observer processor--}-- technology used for gathering infrared light.".....
O >------------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/----------> ( * * )
..."Infrared is usually divided into 3 spectral regions: near, mid and far-infrared.
...The boundaries between the near, mid and far-infrared regions are not agree dupon and can vary. The main factor that determines which wavelengths are included in each of these three infrared regions is the typeof detector --{--i,e. observer processor--}-- technology used for gathering infrared light.".....see LINK
-->
@mustardness
...1} what is being processed ex photon of specific frequency, and,....2} how it is being processed by biologic animal, plant fungus, bacteria etc.Both are objectively true irrespective if the resultant after processing is the same for each biologic.
doesn't a resultant have to occur for there to be objectivity? Observers would be irrelevant otherwise.
-->
@mustardness
Do you have a lite version of what you just typed?
I would greatly appreciate it.
-->
@Reece
@TheRealNihilist
doesn't a resultant have to occur for there to be objectivity? Observers would be irrelevant otherwise.
Yes. Not sure I suggested otherwise. Not sure what is more correct way of stating my below.
...1} what is being processed ex photon of specific frequency, and,
....2} how it is being processed by various humans or other biologic animal, plant fungus, bacteria etc.
......{ Ex Fred Hoyle states, in his 190's book "The Intelligent Universe"... that the gene that reflects yellow in animals is same gene in plants. }..
Both are objectively { observed } true, irrespective, of wheter the resultants after processing, is the same for each biologic.
One sees red and color blind sees something else both both resultants are true for that observer.
So each biologic may or may not process frequency of color the same way, if at all.
And again, there may be many various kinds of molecules that cause the same frequency of color to be reflected.
So one person hears a sound and that is truth. Another person hears no sound and that is truth for that individual.
Two kinds of truth exist, absolute and relative. If there exists a third kind of truth, that is not a subcatagory of those two, please share and I will add it to my Cosmic Trinity.
Omar--Do you have a lite version of what you just typed? I would greatly appreciate it.
"lite" equals watered down i.e. less refined less descriptive ergo not the whole truth. Not a comprehensive truth.
The more we refine { pure } our definitions of words --of what we observe-- the closer we orbit absolute truth, or that is approximately how Fuller states it.
Refined//pure takes more words ie a process of sorting { winnowiing out } the chaff from the hull and any other debri to get to the kernal//core.
Generalizations take less words. Ex we have SPACE, and then we have two primary sub-catagorys of SPACE.
We have generalized human, but then we have many subcatagories of human. Male, Female, Black, White, Asian, Tall, Short, etc.
Fuller also mentions how he did all this long hand math to get to his trigometric solutions, and he knows the process//pathway of how he got from A to Z. Then along comes digital computer and kids can get the correct resultant immediatly without any idea of the processsing pathways of how the calculator got there.
A woman has a baby and she can tell you the process but a man can never truly know the process because he cannot confirm he knows the feelings the woman has. Woman and man are distinctly differrent organisms, even greater than race//color.
-->
@Reece
All opinions are personal. That's just a word trick. If I have 3 people with the same opinion then those are 3 personal opinions. Just because you arbitrarily categorized them as being something bigger doesn't change what they are at the fundamental level. A particle doesn't stop being a particle just because it's inside an atom. The very fact that you have to argue simple definitions like this only goes to further prove my point that your confusing language is impractical.
Lemme ask you this. Would you rather spend your debate arguments defining things every two lines or debating?
What specifically about science makes it on the same level as religion? What are religions standards for testing the truth of something? Because science has a very strict process. Religions give you a rulebook and tell you to follow it. How is that reliable. Furthermore, you missed the point of my contention. Your standard can make anything true by opinion. Your standard could literally have people arguing over the color of the sky and by your standard, all of them would be right. Rape would be right and wrong at the same time. Gravity would be true and false at the same time. How do you not see a problem with this?
It's not a strawman. I'm using your standard. When you dismissed those ridiculous things just now, you didn't do it using your standard. You did it intuitively because you know they're not right. So this tells me that you don't even believe in your own claims. Your standard is 2 or more people make objective reality. So if two people agree that unicorns are real then they're real correct? This is what you told me. Don't cry straw man when YOU are the one who built the straw man.
If you want to stay simple, then how about using popular definitions instead of your own faulty system. I'm not saying this to attack you personally, but I don't tolerate bad logic. That's how cults get started. If your standard can't even handle unicorns, then we have a problem.
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You already had your time for questions. So you said reality is subjective, Noted.
Okay so your proof is to take a picture and then presuppose it's true? Really Omar? Really? This big foundation for you logic is a flimsy presupposition? Pictures are not your senses. I find it dubious that you rely on a camera more than your eyeballs.
So you think reality is subjective because you can't see the whole cosmos at once? You realize this does not fit the definition of subjective right? subjective means your opinion. Your opinion has nothing to do with where you are in space. Your opinion is applied post hoc to your experience. When you say subjective reality, you're saying "your opinion about reality" That is not a thing, it's a feeling, a thought even, but nothing more.
Alright. Now back to the main point. You said reality is subjective (your opinion)
1) How do you prove that?
2) Is that proof subjective?
3) How do you prove the proof?
4) Is the proof of your proof subjective?
5) How do you prove the proof of your proof?
-->
@mustardness
Could I get some elaboration on what makes something a relative truth? I'm a bit skeptical that such truths exist, but not enough to contend outright. I was thinking you could help sway me one way or the other.
-->
@mustardness
I know you gave the color example, but colors themselves don't actually exist. So this makes conceptualizing a relative truth difficult because I would like to see it applied to something physical as opposed to an abstraction of the physical. I'm not saying that I can't use my senses, it's just color is one of those weird things that has different implications