Total posts: 72
Posted in:
Is it possible yet to close your account? How do you close your account?
Created:
Posted in:
So it is something. I should instead say it (I) doesn't have any features except to observe and is only itself because there are things to observe. It is like the sky to the clouds; without the sky there wouldn't be any clouds, but the sky is only a something insofar that there are things in it.I said observer.... Observer means you are the oneobserving an object or experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
is called awareness, consciousness or soul. It is a sentient, creative expression not a nothing. You are a something.
I don't have any qualities.
Wait a minute, you ARE observing AT ALL times. What are you saying? at what point are you NOT observing?
I am saying it is not a thing like observed things. The "awareness, consciousness or soul" doesn't have any appearance and isn't itself observable. Or else it would be observed and make itself not an observer.
If observation takes place all the time and there must be something that observes, then I guess I can't say the observer is nothing without also implying we do not observe. So instead I'll say that the things I observe also observe me and that observed things are not other than an observer or else without one there is not the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
"Nothing" is an observer? or are you not an observer?
I mean it is not anything. It can be called you or I.
If it were something, it would be observable but it isn't. It doesn't have an appearance like observed things do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Is correspondence necessary when it comes to perception? I mean, what could be different about our perception of an object and the object we perceive? If they are different, wouldn't any examination just be checking our initial perception with another perception?
we learn that when we perceive something usually there seems to be something external that the perception closely corresponds to.
Can you give an example?
Through interaction with other humans we acquire language and learn to express our experience of the world by saying objects that correspond to our perceptions of them are labelled 'real' (and collectively constitute 'reality'); on the other hand perceptions that do not correspond to external objects are called 'illusions'.
Oh, I think I agree.
Created:
No instance or example of justice is perfect, that's for sure, but they all have justice in common. Whatever the punishment is, there is wrongdoing and the penalty for wrongdoing. Even when not all parties agree that wrong has been done, or if they do, that the penalty is just or proportionate.
Is it possible for injustice to ever be good, if justice can ever be bad?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wouldn't justice that isn't good instead be injustice?
Created:
Posted in:
There is not even "up" in a world with only one direction. In a world with only one direction, there is not even direction. There is just a world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
If everything is illusion, then nothing is illusion. Given that, "You have no way to know if this reality is an illusion", then "this" is neither. But there are these ideas for whatever reason. If we only had "up", of course we wouldn't know if we were going up or down. But then, why even ask about it? Is it even possible to conceive? Does it make sense? If they're different by definition, maybe you could tell me what it is that makes them different.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is there a possible standard where justice is not good? Does it matter that it is whatever you just said? And what is subjective about justice except that people disagree about which decisions are just or unjust? Who would say they don't want or like justice and know also know what they are saying?
Created:
I just realized I contradicted myself in the last post. I said,
if I thought there were good things other than goodness, I don't think so anymore.
And then went on to say,
It [a good thing] doesn't possess any attribute, except those that are good anyway, like justice.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
A good thing would be goodness itself, and other things just have the appearance of being good. There isn't anything that makes a thing good. If there was, if there must be some qualification for goodness, then the thing isn't really good. At least, as far as I see it. Which prompted me to ask in the first post, "Does inquiry into why something is good (or bad) undermine goodness?"
Over the course of this thread, if I thought there were good things other than goodness, I don't think so anymore. At least I think it's more complicated than that. I don't want to agree that humans assign goodness to things because goodness itself isn't an assignment. As in, though there is disagreement about which things are good and which isn't, there is the commonality of "good" that doesn't depend on human preference. But I can't make sense of the difference, and I guess saying that goodness is assigned resolves that. An alternative is that there is good in things and the ability to perceive that good (rather than assign it) depends one's knowledge of what good is. But again when two people disagree, there must be a reason (which either undermines goodness or how good a thing is). Anyway, I concede that it is assigned even though I think it is a deficient explanation because I don't have anything better in mind right now.
What makes a thing "good" what attributes does a "good thing" possess?
It doesn't possess any attribute, except those that are good anyway, like justice. Which doesn't answer you question that well, I don't think. I don't think it's answerable because it implies that there is something other than goodness that makes something good. And if that were the case, the thing isn't actually good.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
It doesn't, not because it's emergent but because it doesn't exist in space, three-dimensional or otherwise. If emergence already entails this, then what I've said is redundant.
Before when I said I don't know meaningful things could come from a meaningless universe, I actually meant how could it come from meaningless things; I did not consider things to be other than the universe.
It's been said that humans assign value to things. That minds emerge from "organic brains" is about as apparent as things being good. Maybe some things aren't actually good and only appear to be good, but couldn't the same be said about minds and brains? For a example, food appears to be good but isn't really; brains appear to have minds but don't really.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Where do minds exist?
Created:
Is meaning (or whatever other things you'd call subjective) a thing that is included in the "collection of separate things all separate from each other."?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
So from what you've last said, it sounds to me universe is a set. I don't think it is accurate to call it a place unless that is exactly what you mean.
What is meaning, then? And, if the universe must be a place, there is still, for whatever reason, experience and ideas and values and whatever else. Humans are in a "place," along with other things.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that is what I was trying to get at with secularmerlin. Is this true only of Quanta? I concede I was making a category error earlier.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Is a hand separate from the body?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I mean, are we separate from the universe? Is that better?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
If by the teleological fallacy you meant that I was saying a hammer has a purpose or function it is meant to fulfill, I didn't mean that. You can use a hammer for whatever you can imagine. I meant that with the goal of banging a nail in mind, a hammer can do it and compared to a pencil it does it better.
I was trying to explain what makes things good but I didn't know how to do it without relating it to things at least in the beginning. This is done anyway in colloquial language. But according to secularmerlin this is actually an example of utility. Still I doubt a thing is good by itself unless it's goodness itself. Is there nothing Quanta-like about Qualia?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are "you and I" or "all humans" apart from the universe?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Who or what is we?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Demonstrated is probably the wrong word. If their behavior is any indicator then I have observed that humans are worthwhile to other humans and many of their pets and also to the animals they eat. Anything beyond this is just conjecture.
Is this not also conjecture? Is it any more veridical than water being meaningful to plants? Than the ground being meaningful to unsupported objects? Surely this observation is based on more than just behavior.
They are observed by the opinion holder and by any observer the opinion holder shares their opinions with. That does not change the fact that without the opinion holder there is no opinion to be observed.
"'I don't understand how a supposedly meaningless universe could spawn meaningful things'
As far as I can tell it did not. I am unaware of any meaning or value that was not assigned or imposed subjectively and artificially by humans" (#91).
So then I asked you if humans are meaningful and to paraphrase you said they are to other humans. But what about those humans? Are they then meaningful to other humans? Who are meaningful to others and others to others? Where does the meaning come from? From humans who are otherwise meaningless?
"'nor do I understand how subjective values are any more made up or artificial than anything else that exists.'
I'm just not sure what you mean by this. An asteroid exists physically an opinion does not exist beyond the opinion holder" (#91).
I meant that opinions are just as "made up" as asteroids, even if they are contingent on an opinion holder.
And before all of that:
"Subjective values give things meaning but they are not real they are made up. They are artificial constructs we use to relate to a meaningless universe" (#87).
What does that say about humans? Supposedly they find each other meaningful.
Explain all you like but without proof of this necessity I may be unable to believe that.
Are subjectivity and objectivity not dichotomous? What are they without the other to contrast?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
"Are humans meaningful?"- Shed12Only to other humans and the animals we share our environment with. If there is any further meaning it has not been demonstrated to me.
Has it been demonstrated that humans are meaningful to other humans and the animals that share environments with them?
"Does the physicality of an asteroid make it less artificial than an opinion? Are opinions and asteroids even ontically different?"- Shed12That depends on whether or not the physical universe exists as we perceive it. Provided the physical universe is real then asteroids exist whether there is any observer or not. Opinions differ in That they do not exist unless there is someone to have them.
By physical universe do you mean one that is purely physical?
Are opinions not also observed by an observer?
"I guess I object to the final deciding nature of definitons. I agree they are important but believe they should change as the thing being investigated becomes clearer."- Shed12It is true that a definition should be dependent on reality not the other way around but we must still agree on what to call things or we may not be talking about the same things. When we finally realize that we are not having the same conversation we would have to stop and define terms anyway. It is better in my opinion to have the discussion before we begin.
That's fair.
"(As an example) like I said above even though there can be agreement, it may not necessarily be freedom that is good. It may be something more fundamental that freedom shares with other good things. If that can be elucidated then the definiton should be tweaked. Same thing if it is initially agreed that repression is evil."- Shed12My whole point is that there may not be any objective good or evil. My personal preferred standard for what is moral is human wellbeing followed closely by wellbeing in general. If something promotes harm it is generally speaking in my opinion immoral and if it promotes wellbeing then generally speaking in my opinion it is moral. If you do not agree with this standard and do not have one to offer we are probably at the end of this conversation but in either case wellbeing is only my subjective personal standard.
I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think the subjectivity of morality precludes its objectivity. In fact I believe that subjectivity necessitates objectivity. I can explain why I think so in another post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Is it really an image, like something you see, or is "image" a metaphor?The Most Perfect Image in Truth
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't consider that you said "convincing and persistent." If they were not, what are they and what is different?I mean if two things aren't distinguishable, what are they except the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
I mean if two things aren't distinguishable, what are they except the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I've thought some more about what you said. Does everything have an appearance? I think I understand that what a thing appears to be is not the thing, but nonetheless the thing has an appearance. And that appearance is an illusion vs the actual thing.
Created:
Posted in:
[ ]
| [ ] |
| Ultimate Reality | Reality/Illusion | |
| [ ] |
[ ]
Is it something like this?
Created:
Posted in:
What is reality? What is illusion?
I do not mean which things are real and which things are illusory but what is realness itself and what is illusion itself. Telling which is which is not useless or discouraged, but if you will, can you explain why this is real and that is not?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
"I don't understand how a supposedly meaningless universe could spawn meaningful things"As far as I can tell it did not. I am unaware of any meaning or value that was not assigned or imposed subjectively and artificially by humans.
Are humans meaningful?
"nor do I understand how subjective values are any more made up or artificial than anything else that exists."I'm just not sure what you mean by this. An asteroid exists physically an opinion does not exist beyond the opinion holder.
Does the physicality of an asteroid make it less artificial than an opinion? Are opinions and asteroids even ontically different?
"By objective judgment, I mean what you mean"That remains to be seen.
I take it back then. Qualifying judgment or value with "subjective" didn't make sense to me anyway. I brought up objective judgment as an inverse to "subjective judgment" from,
When one is discussing morality one is usually making subjective judgements about what... (post #87)
The defining of terms is a necessary step in the pursuit of any debate. If we do not agree on the definitions of the words or concepts we are discussing we may not even be having the same conversation.
I guess I object to the final deciding nature of definitons. I agree they are important but believe they should change as the thing being investigated becomes clearer.
For example if we agreed for the purposes of this discussion that we will both agree that freedom is good and repression is evil and based on our agreed upon criteria killing someone would be evil because a dead person has no freedom. (post #87)
(As an example) like I said above even though there can be agreement, it may not necessarily be freedom that is good. It may be something more fundamental that freedom shares with other good things. If that can be elucidated then the definiton should be tweaked. Same thing if it is initially agreed that repression is evil.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
You answered my questions.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
There are objective facts. The temperature is a measurable objective fact. Objective facts are meaningless.And then there are subjective values. It is cold is a subjective observation based on our opinion of what constitutes hot or cold. Subjective values give things meaning but they are not real they are made up. They are artificial constructs we use to relate to a meaningless universe.
I don't understand how a supposedly meaningless universe could spawn meaningful things, nor do I understand how subjective values are any more made up or artificial than anything else that exists.
That depends on what you mean by objective judgements. We can agree on the subjective standard we will base our arguments about morality on and then make objective statements about morality based on that standard. For example if we agreed for the purposes of this discussion that we will both agree that freedom is good and repression is evil and based on our agreed upon criteria killing someone would be evil because a dead person has no freedom.
By objective judgment, I mean what you mean. Does agreement really matter?
Did you have such a standard you wish to adopt for the purposes of this discussion?
No.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
I'll read through yours and merlin's posts
Created:
And if for some reason the judgment must be subjective to be morality, would an objective one just be something else?
When one is discussing morality one is usually
I shouldn't ignore that you said usually. There is aalso what morality is, and not just what is usually discussed, no?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Can you explain to me what subjective and objective means here?
Concerning morality, can't objective judgments be made?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
When it comes to things, utility may be the as far as it goes. Now that you bring that up I think people disagree on what is good because they really mean the utility of a thing and not morality. So when someone says being healthy is good and someone else disagrees there is really a disagreement about what health is good for. And when people disagree about the status of killing, the same thing is happening.
The difference between utility and morality is that utility is concerned with earthly things and morality is concerned with goodness itself. But goodness can be abstracted from things, which is why I like to start from things. Knowing what's good can inform action beyond what just knowing what's good and what it's good for.
I'd say goodness is what makes something good but I understand that is circular. You could just ask again what makes something good or what is goodness.
What do you think goodness is?
What do you think is the difference between utility and morality?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
A thing is made good by what degree it fulfills a function. For example, for banging nails, a hammer is more good than a pencil, and for writing, a pencil is more good than a hammer.
Whether you accept that or not, do you have any thoughts on why people have different opinions about what is and isn't good?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think the fact that we have a sense of goodness is enough. I'm more interested in goodness itself rather than good things, but good things is easiest to start from.
The things we find good may be different, which is fine, but I don't think the "good" is different. Like you've said, "Good and evil are subjective." Commonly accepted standards wouldn't bring us any closer to good itself.
Isn't "a commonly accepted standard" just a group of subjective whatevers?
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
If you do not know what you mean by good and evil (or cannot articulate it) then how shall we have an intellectual conversation on the subject?
Would you agree with me that there are good things?
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
I define evil as malicious imprisonment, rape and murder and all the degrees thereof. For instance, torture would be imprisonment and possibly murder. Mentally harming another would be imprisonment. Beating someone up would be imprisonment. Sexual assault would fall under rape. Etc.Lying to someone would fall under imprisonment but without malice it would just be bad not evil. Lying to someone resulting in death, rape, etc.. would fall under evil. That's how i distinguish the differences.
So let's say there are evil things. What is evil pure? Malicious imprisonment, rape and murder may be evil but they are also different and individual evil things. And for some reason despite being evil they are done. Why are there evil-doers?
Created:
-->
@ethang5
What about two people who agree on what they mean by good and evil? Could they talk?
Yes.
Created: