-->
@3RU7AL
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can argue all you like about it being non-distinguishable, but it is still there. It wouldn't matter if humanity was never here, the universe objectively existed. You are incorrect here.
What I realized
Posts
Total:
449
-->
@3RU7AL
Do FACTS have words?
I don’t understand that question, so are you going to defend your claim or not?
-->
@Tarik
Do FACTS have words?I don’t understand that question, so are you going to defend your claim or not?
Claim: FACTS are comprised of WORDS.
Claim: WORDS are NOT OBJECTS.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can argue all you like about it being non-distinguishable, but it is still there. It wouldn't matter if humanity was never here, the universe objectively existed. You are incorrect here.
Human words and or concepts and or descriptions and or claims are not OBJECTS.
Human words and or concepts and or descriptions and or claims cannot exist without a human mind.
Your precious undiscovered and or unobserved and or unobservable OBJECTS may or may not "exist" (depending on how you wish to define the word, "existence").
For example,
AND.
-->
@3RU7AL
Claim: WORDS are NOT OBJECTS.
Isn’t the word object a word?
-->
@Tarik
Isn’t the word object a word?
yES.
-->
@3RU7AL
Claim: FACTS are comprised of WORDS.
For arguments sake I’ll bite but those words there comprised of are objective.
OBJECTIVE = OBJECT
Can you support this claim, because I can think of a plethora of abstract objective things such as mathematics, science, and energy.
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
Word, fact and object are all internal data construct and subject to the same production process.
Therefore, irrespective of possible validity, all such data output is an abstract internal process.
An object, (including appreciable narrative) although subject to the same internal process for validity, nonetheless also involves sensory mechanisms, which allows for a level of certainty.
Nonetheless an appreciable narrative that represents an internal data construct, is only representative of an abstract process.
In short, objective is subjective unless subject to a level of sensory certainty (perhaps)....Though an appreciable narrative does not in itself validate an internal data construct as a representation of an external reality.
In fact, considering the nature of human function and process....I think that it is fair to say that we can never be 100% certain of anything.....Though our ability to be uncertain does offer us a high degree of confidence in our existence......I think therefore I am as it where.
-->
@Tarik
those words there comprised of are objective
WORDS are NOT OBJECTS.
-->
@Tarik
I can think of a plethora of abstract objective things such as mathematics,
Please explain HOW "mathematics" qualifies as "OBJECTIVE"?
I mean, only humans use mathematical symbols and systems.
And humans are motivated by e-motion.
-->
@zedvictor4
an appreciable narrative does not in itself validate an internal data construct as a representation of an external reality.
Well stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
In short, objective is subjective unless subject to a level of sensory certainty (perhaps)....Though an appreciable narrative does not in itself validate an internal data construct as a representation of an external reality.In fact, considering the nature of human function and process....I think that it is fair to say that we can never be 100% certain of anything.....Though our ability to be uncertain does offer us a high degree of confidence in our existence......I think therefore I am as it where.
What dictionary you’ve seen that defines objective as subjective? If you truly believe this then that’s definitely one of things you shouldn’t be certain about.
-->
@3RU7AL
WORDS are NOT OBJECTS.
Can you support the claim that objective means objects?
-->
@Tarik
Can you support the claim that objective means objects?
ob·jec·tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
-->
@3RU7AL
You can’t just nitpick and choose in regards to the definition, much more was said outside of what you put in bold, arguments I’ve been making for quite some time like reality independent of the mind
-->
@Tarik
reality independent of the mind
MUST BE COMPRISED OF OBJECTS.
OBJECTS.
OBJECTS.
NOT CONCEPTS.
-->
@3RU7AL
...The definition does not say that, just because it includes objects doesn’t mean it’s limited to objects.
-->
@Tarik
...The definition does not say that, just because it includes objects doesn’t mean it’s limited to objects.
CONCEPTS ARE NOT "INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND".
ONLY OBJECTS CAN BE (EVEN HYPOTHETICALLY) "INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND".
-->
@3RU7AL
CONCEPTS ARE NOT "INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND".
...So what about science? If you wanna dispute mathematics then fine, but nature isn’t limited to human nature.
-->
@Tarik
...So what about science?
IS "SCIENCE" AN OBJECT?
-->
@3RU7AL
...No that’s the point, it’s an abstract concept independent of the mind making it inherently objective.
-->
@Tarik
...No that’s the point, it’s an abstract concept independent of the mind making it inherently objective.
"SCIENCE" DOES NOT EXIST WITHOUT A (HUMAN) MIND.
for example, when was "science" first "invented"?
did dinosaurs invent "science"?
did trilobites invent "science"?
when did the first "science" happen?
-->
@3RU7AL
I don’t know, maybe I should turn that question back to you considering your making more claims then I am on the matter. Who is the genius human mind that’s responsible for science?
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know, maybe I should turn that question back to you considering your making more claims then I am on the matter. Who is the genius human mind that’s responsible for science?
Excellent. At least we can agree that it was a HUMAN MIND.
aND without a HUMAN MIND, "SCIENCE" WOULD NOT "EXIST".
-->
@3RU7AL
...No we don’t agree to that, me asking a question in regards to your belief doesn’t mean I agree to it, are you going to answer or not?
-->
@Tarik
...No we don’t agree to that, me asking a question in regards to your belief doesn’t mean I agree to it, are you going to answer or not?
We are not in conflict over the exact time and date of the coining or the word "science".
We seem to be in conflict over whether or not "science" can "exist" without a human mind.
So, I'll ask you, in a world without human minds, where is your "science"?
-->
@Tarik
science (n.)
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").
From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. [LINK]
mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens (genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide" (from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split;" source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").
From late 14c. in English as "book-learning," also "a particular branch of knowledge or of learning;" also "skillfulness, cleverness; craftiness." From c. 1400 as "experiential knowledge;" also "a skill, handicraft; a trade." From late 14c. as "collective human knowledge" (especially that gained by systematic observation, experiment, and reasoning). Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. Sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1670s. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
So, I'll ask you, in a world without human minds, where is your "science"?
I don’t know, again let me return a question back at you where is your science?
-->
@Tarik
Not the words, but the processes.
You get too hung up on words, which are representational data constructs.....Which in terms of both subjective and objective, primarily represent an assumed, abstract truth.
In terms of production... Other than the appreciable narrative, both are subject to the same creative process.
We can often have a high degree of certainty that our internal constructs represent external reality....Object or objective.
But we also often, actually have no certainty and rely upon an assumed certainty, which cannot actually represent anything external, other than an appreciable narrative.
The appreciable narrative itself is objective, though the internally organised data content contained therein, is wholly abstract or subjective.
-->
@Tarik
So, I'll ask you, in a world without human minds, where is your "science"?I don’t know, again let me return a question back at you where is your science?
IN HUMAN MINDS.