It is time: Ramshutu AMA

Author: Ramshutu

Posts

Total: 219
#181
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Last time I checked, blind people had other senses, and are capable of using equipment such as spectrographs, etc: but even then - your example
was mostly a bit of a straw man, because it’s not like they see blue as green, and can’t agree on the color, they just can’t make the observation.
So not seeing observable means they can still receive evidence? Explain to me how it is the case.

It would be greatly appreciated if you told me what part of my comment you were addressing.
Observing something external, having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing, and it’s inherent nature does very much make it an objective observation.
An appeal to popularity?
What if multiple people saw God would that be an objective observation?
Truth is what is congruent with reality; for probably the third time, objective means not based on feelings.
Under the framework we are in. You can't distinguish between our feelings given the nature of our existence. We use our brains which is subjective to interact with the world.
Like I said, your making this way too complex as I think you’re not using an appropriate definition for what objective means.
Objective is something not based on feelings. You can say something is not based on feelings while also using your brain to type that.
Objective and subjective is the difference between “this weighs 8 tons” and “nickelback are a great band”
Analogies are best used to cater to the area that the person is knowledgeable off. I can't picture 8 tons nor have I ever listened to a complete nicklebank song apart from nickleback being a feature of another song. I like video games and keep it broad since I don't really play the most popular games when trying to make an analogy to help me understand what you are saying. 
Topic's author
#182
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You seem to have completely gone of the rails.

What do you think objective means?


#183
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
What do you think objective means?

not based on feelings.
Topic's author
#184
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So, which part of the fact that electromagnetic radiation from the sky is predominantly between 380nm and 500nm is “based on feelings”
#185
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
So, which part of the fact that electromagnetic radiation from the sky is predominantly between 380nm and 500nm is “based on feelings”
The part where it would have to go through the brain to register. This should have made it simple:
Under the framework we are in. You can't distinguish between our feelings given the nature of our existence. We use our brains which is subjective to interact with the world.


Topic's author
#186
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So light that comes from the sky isn’t predominantly made up of light that is at 380nm - 500nm?
#187
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
So light that comes from the sky isn’t predominantly made up of light that is at 380nm - 500nm?
I am simply stating it is going to register in your brain which is subjective. So my problem isn't with the context here instead the base of it. 

Topic's author
#188
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Claiming it is subjective means that you’re arguing that light from the sky being at 380 - 500nm is a product of the human brain and our “feelings”. This means that light coming from the sky isn’t really 380nm - 500. 


#189
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Claiming it is subjective means that you’re arguing that light from the sky being at 380 - 500nm is a product of the human brain and our “feelings”. This means that light coming from the sky isn’t really 380nm - 500. 
Who is straw-manning who again?

I am claiming that context is missing information as in the base of everything we use to perceive the world. The brain. That brain is subjective. Care to respond to that?
Topic's author
#190
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
For something to be subjective; it must be based upon feelings.

If the sky being blue is based upon feelings - then the light from the sky must not really be 380nm - 500nm; it is simply our brains making that up.

This is not a straw man - this is using a key problem in your argument to illustrate your failure in understanding. You may not like it, but you really do need to answer the question - as the answer is instructive of your problem.

is light from the sky predominantly 380nm -500mm, regardless of how it is measured, or who measures it? And regardless and independent of who’s subjective brain is viewing the information?




#191
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
For something to be subjective; it must be based upon feelings.
I am saying under the assumption we are rational thinkers and we are not clouded by other external factors that would be true.
If the sky being blue is based upon feelings - then the light from the sky must not really be 380nm - 500nm; it is simply our brains making that up.
The sky is blue under the assumptions that we are not clouded by external factors. You are removing the fundamental limits of humans or as a better phrase our epistemological limits. One such epistemological limit is our failure to self-verify. We can prove our proof or in another way we can't prove that science is the best method of observing by itself. We must use what is already present to confirm it as in the other measurements are wrong therefore science is the most helpful not the best irrespective of the alternatives. In order for something to be objective it would have to be proven outside being more effective than the alternatives at whatever it is we are measuring.
but you really do need to answer the question - as the answer is instructive of your problem.
Explain.
is light from the sky predominantly 380nm -500mm, regardless of how it is measured, or who measures it?
Under the assumptions that our tools are correct and we are able to perceive it then yes.
And regardless and independent of who’s subjective brain is viewing the information?
You even said it yourself it is not possible or if you think it is a straw-man you implied it:
Observing something external, having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing, and it’s inherent nature does very much make it an objective observation.
Topic's author
#192
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The sky is blue under the assumptions that we are not clouded by external factors
Bingo.

So; if we aren’t “clouded by external factors”: it is objective that the sky is blue?
#193
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Bingo.

So; if we aren’t “clouded by external factors”: it is objective that the sky is blue?
Yes but I don't think we can actually be removed from factors (should have just said factors since there are internal problems as well).

Topic's author
#194
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yes but...
So; one outcome if we are not “clouded by external factors” is that the wavelength of light that comes from the sky is objective. That would disprove your thesis.


Please explain what part of “external factors” (that are able to effect how every human on the planet perceives light from the sky - such that it makes all humans perceive this light in the same way - and to have the same wavelength) - are based on “feelings”.


#195
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
one outcome if we are not “clouded by external factors” is that the wavelength of light that comes from the sky is objective. That would disprove your thesis.
That if is not met.
Please explain what part of “external factors” (that are able to effect how every human on the planet perceives light from the sky - such that it makes all humans perceive this light in the same way - and to have the same wavelength) - are based on “feelings”.
Meant factors instead of external factors.

  • Ability to state a value better than another (How is X better than Y?)
  • Ability to self-verify (How do you prove proof?)
I'll stick to this for now.


Topic's author
#196
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist

  • Ability to state a value better than another (How is X better than Y?)
This is not relevant to the fact of whether the sky is blue.

  • Ability to self-verify (How do you prove proof?)
This is an ability not a feeling.
#197
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
This is not relevant to the fact of whether the sky is blue.
Yes it is. The sky is blue is never really the full story. Should I care if the sky is blue? Should I look if the sky is blue? 
This is an ability not a feeling.
Given our nature linked to our brain a subjective thing that gives us feelings. It is a barrier to self-verification. 
Topic's author
#198
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Firstly - that light from the sky is between the wavelengths of 380nm and 600nm is the objective fact; if you want to then go one step further and  make subjective ruminations about whether you should care about that fact - this is up to you.

Whether you should care about the sky; or bother to look up, is probably subjective: but isn’t what we’re talking about - that’s just a nonsensical subjective question your injecting into the underlying fact, and is therefore meaningless.


Second - this is bordering on ridiculous now. I don’t think you’re really keeping track of what we’re talking about.

Everyone observes that the sky is blue. We’re either all correct - or we’re all wrong in exactly the same way.

If we’re not lo wrong - then the fact is objective - if we’re all wrong in exactly the same way - then the cause of the error cannot possibly be down to individual feelings in my brain or your brain - if we are all wrong, then the lack of arbitrary observation of everyone observing different things indicates an external cause of the error - hence it too is still objective.

Which again, leads me to believe you don’t really grasp the concept of subjective or objective: and are simply muddling up concepts of what is true or not; vs what is affected by individual thoughts or feelings.







#199
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Firstly - that light from the sky is between the wavelengths of 380nm and 600nm is the objective fact; if you want to then go one step further and  make subjective ruminations about whether you should care about that fact - this is up to you.
There is a purpose behind every reaction even if it is just a biological disposition. You narrow view of what is objective still isn't objective given the assumptions that have to be made.
Whether you should care about the sky; or bother to look up, is probably subjective: but isn’t what we’re talking about - that’s just a nonsensical subjective question your injecting into the underlying fact, and is therefore meaningless.
Okay. Had a point then I decided to remove it. 
Everyone observes that the sky is blue. We’re either all correct - or we’re all wrong in exactly the same way.
Not blind people. Not people who are yet born. Not people in a coma. Not people on life support. Do you want me to go on or are you going to change "Everyone" to people who can see?
If we’re not lo wrong - then the fact is objective - if we’re all wrong in exactly the same way - then the cause of the error cannot possibly be down to individual feelings in my brain or your brain - if we are all wrong, then the lack of arbitrary observation of everyone observing different things indicates an external cause of the error - hence it too is still objective.
Which I said earlier answering the question about the wavelengths wasn't important or maybe you missed that? I said it here: 
I am simply stating it is going to register in your brain which is subjective. So my problem isn't with the context here instead the base of it. 

Which again, leads me to believe you don’t really grasp the concept of subjective or objective: and are simply muddling up concepts of what is true or not; vs what is affected by individual thoughts or feelings.
You don't grasp what you already conceded here:
The sky is blue under the assumptions that we are not clouded by external factors
Bingo.
You have conceded we require assumptions to make your objective claim valid. I am simply stating by having assumptions your claims are not objective because we can't actually prove axioms. Those are believed to be true. 

#200
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,776
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
what is the biggest meme on the site?
#201
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Vader
Don't know.

Arguing? 
#202
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,776
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
there needs to be a meme that is iconic to this site
#203
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Vader
there needs to be a meme that is iconic to this site
Something like you know debating has gone too far when people don't use the debate section to debate. 
#204
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,776
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
thats a spicy meme, but we need a spicy meme
Topic's author
#205
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Again - you’re confusing not knowing whether something is really true - and reality is not what it appears - and the reality we see is mutable and dependent on our feelings and emotions.

You’ve conceded that if what we see is real - these things are objective, and I have shown that if they aren’t real then we are all affected equally by the same issue - and what we see is still not dependent on our thoughts and feelings. In both cases the fact is objective - all that is up for grabs is the underlying reality of that fact.

At this point you appear to be being unnecessarily obtuse.
Topic's author
#206
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Vader
I think my avatar is up there.
#207
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
you’re confusing not knowing whether something is really true
Isn't that the entire idea of a fact to state something to be true as in the sky is blue?
You’ve conceded that if what we see is real - these things are objective,
My problem wasn't with what was real. So this is a point about something that wasn't even a contention. My problem was if we were able to see what was real and confirm it.
At this point you appear to be being unnecessarily obtuse.
No you just don't understand my point.

I'll clarify.
Saying something is objective misses the assumptions being made which stops it from being objective. Nothing is actual objective even in your narrow minded concept because even if I agree with the sky is blue it is still built upon axioms you or I can't justify. 

Can you please quote me? 
Topic's author
#208
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I get exactly and specifically the argument you’re making: it’s just that it is both wrong, and getting to the point it’s obtuae.

You’re confusing that we observe things using our brains, with the things we observe being dependent on feelings. It’s a rather obtuse confusion I’ve been attempting to correct for a while - and seems to imply you’re not clear on the definitions of the words you’re using.

The sky is blue. That is an objective fact as it is not dependent on my emotional state, my feelings, or thoughts: or anyone’s feelings or thoughts. The sky is blue as the wavelength of light coming from it is 380-500nm - something we all agree upon.

Thats what the words mean. We’ve established that the underlying measurement is external, based on external things, and things like 1nm, or methods are also not dependent on our thoughts or feelings.

Your confusing, repeatedly - and I’m running out of ways to correct you - the potential fallability of our senses, with the concept that what we see is dependent on our feelings and emotions.

They are two different things. Unrelated. Not the same. Different. 


What that means, is that if the sky is really blue - then it’s an objective fact - if it’s not really blue then it’s a collective delusion. In neither of those two cases is the 380-500nm dependent on our thoughts and feelings.



If  color of the sky was not objective and was subjective - then it would change from person to person, it would be different from you and me; I could happily say that the wavelength was 30nm-50nm if I wanted to.


Quite frankly, I’m largely bored of trying to explain the key differences between objective and subjective. If you’re just going to kick around the same can, I’m not going to reply.
 
#209
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Thats what the words mean. We’ve established that the underlying measurement is external
What if I believe in solipsism?

Topic's author
#210
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please show me a way in which you can use your feelings of thoughts to change the wavelength of light coming from the sky because you believe in solipsism.

I can wait.