philosophy guff (1 Viewer)

[potlatch]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

"Theory is always for someone, for some purpose."

How come no one's mentioned power in all this?

Not only do any objective statements that knock off "I believe that..." conceal the subjective nature of human judgements, they do so in a way as to exercise power over people by positing subjective judgements as 'correct', or sometimes as non-negotiable, self-evident truths. So people battle over ideas and construct reality in the process, intersubjectively. It's kind of like everyone's disciplining each other any time they interact. But I don't see how anyone who supports the notion of objectivity/absolutism can be someone who also supports freedom of thought etc. And science is the biggest culprate.

Everyone does it. Maybe it sounds a bit stupid talking about power in terms of a difference of opinion over music, but I think it explains a lot.

In any case, the human brain isn't very good at grasping 'reality' anyway, so what makes us think we're even capable of understanding the world objectively?

Even Popper said scientific theories are only ever provisional until they can be negated. People's ideas about the world are only ever as good as the power there is available to back them up.

People don't grasp meaning, they make it.

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

it's more we don't know exactly what the laws of physics are like at a singularity

Hmmm ... say if we get one set of laws at a singularity or in a particular universe, and one set elsewhere. Then the laws of physics are dependent on where you are ... that's kinda what I was getting at originally, that even physical laws can depend on your standpoint. They are absolutely true if you are in this universe away from singularities, but if singularities or other universes exist, then they can't be said to be ABSOLUTELY true.
Does that make sense?

having done physics yourself do you believe something mystical is going on there? i don't mean that in a disparaging way, i'm curious.

Yep, experimental physics degree from UCD in 1993. Nothing mystical going on, I just suspect that the multi/universe might never be completely described with any theory, that it's kind of an irreducible system.

Whoa this two-front discussion is hard-going ...

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

"Theory is always for someone, for some purpose."

How come no one's mentioned power in all this?

Not only do any objective statements that knock off "I believe that..." conceal the subjective nature of human judgements, they do so in a way as to exercise power over people by positing subjective judgements as 'correct', or sometimes as non-negotiable, self-evident truths. So people battle over ideas and construct reality in the process, intersubjectively. It's kind of like everyone's disciplining each other any time they interact. But I don't see how anyone who supports the notion of objectivity/absolutism can be someone who also supports freedom of thought etc. And science is the biggest culprate.

Everyone does it. Maybe it sounds a bit stupid talking about power in terms of a difference of opinion over music, but I think it explains a lot.

In any case, the human brain isn't very good at grasping 'reality' anyway, so what makes us think we're even capable of understanding the world objectively?

Even Popper said scientific theories are only ever provisional until they can be negated. People's ideas about the world are only ever as good as the power there is available to back them up.

People don't grasp meaning, they make it.

totally dissagree,
I support the notion of objectivity and absolutisim but I also support
freedom of thought . i don't see any contradiction at all. Of course i'm sure you mean objectivity in the context of morality and have in mind the totalitaranism or something. There's a difference in believing in absolutes
and asserting that your opionions are absolutely right. this is why science
is for me the best , becuase fundamentally it rejects personal authority and power.
I totally dissagree that we construct reality, I think we discover it
airplanes don't stay in the air becuase people 'mean' them to .
also popper would turn in his grave to hear his name in support of subjectivity

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

But the trouble is that thinking something is objective is not the same as thinking it's subjective and everyone happens to agree, as can be seen with the different behaviour - if we all agree that, say, the best food is raw spuds, and then some stranger walks into our midst professing a taste for spinach, if we've leaned towards thinking it's objectively the best food then we're liable to think this person's an idiot. If we've stuck with thinking we all have our own opinion and just happen to agree (which is I think unlikely to happen), we'd quite happily accept the person's taste.

Hmm
I think we're kind of going at this at cross-purposes.
If we're talking about physical truth like whether raw spuds are in fact the best food from a nutritional perspective, that's one thing - if can be experimentally verified, but it still will only be true in from a certain standpoint (that of humans). Subjective
If we're talking about the taste of raw spuds versus spinach, that's obviously subjective - as far as you know, the stranger could be getting a totally different taste off the spinach due to some genetic difference, and some things (e.g. a rock) can't taste the spinach at all. Subjective
If we're talking about the ethics of spinach versus spuds, we have to first decide what sort of society we want to live in, and then base our ethics on that. If we want to live in a spinach-free world, we decide spinach is evil. Subjective

But I think what you're saying is that it is important whether people think there is Objective Truth. Well, I agree. I wish everyone realised there isn't, which is why I'm here arguing with you

No, why - what are you trying to achieve? They have their subjective viewpoint, and you have yours. If there's an objective truth it does make sense, because one (or both) of you are wrong, and you're trying to correct that, but if it's all subjective...?

If their viewpoint affects their behaviour, and that affects yours, then there is obviously a point in debating (again, that's why I'm debating here). If not, then no point at all, I guess

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

I totally dissagree that we construct reality, I think we discover it

Same here.
There is a physical reality which is consistent over a large volume of space. The fact that it may not be consistent everywhere in the multiverse isn't really relevant for us, except in a debate like this one. E=mc^2 for everything in the universe (singularities excepted), there's no power issues involved. Because of our physical structure we observe phenomena that are indistinguishable (to us) from objective reality.

But, y'know, this is a different thing entirely, and I probably shouldn't be introducing it here it'll only confuse things, but anyway ... Daveor have you done much programming? It has occurred to me that they way we (humans in general) conceptualise the world is object-oriented, but I haven't come across anything in Physics, say, that makes it inconceivable that there might be other ways (for other species, say) of conceptualisation. There might be consciousnesses in the universes that wouldn't be able to tell me from the computer in front of me, but that might be nevertheless conscious ... and I don't mean not be able distinguish me from the computer on account of low-resolution vision or something, I mean that they might see the world as processes rather than things

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

In any case, the human brain isn't very good at grasping 'reality' anyway, so what makes us think we're even capable of understanding the world objectively?

So what are you thinking with that gives you this insight?
I agree with certain parts of what you say, but not your anti-science buzz. The scientific method is a way of discovering what is (subjectively) true for all humans (or, for the physical sciences, for all residents of this universe)

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Hmmm ... say if we get one set of laws at a singularity or in a particular universe, and one set elsewhere. Then the laws of physics are dependent on where you are ... that's kinda what I was getting at originally, that even physical laws can depend on your standpoint. They are absolutely true if you are in this universe away from singularities, but if singularities or other universes exist, then they can't be said to be ABSOLUTELY true.
Does that make sense?

I dissagree, but it is a subtle point, all current physical theories have realms of validity, but the goal is to have one which is valid in all
regimes, ie quantum gravity, which reduces to our local theories in the appropriate limit(where you are). It's true within the context of say something like M-theory that the local laws of physics are dependant on where you are, but this is in the sense of parameters like the masses of certain particles being different etc, the fundamental laws of symmetry and invariance (which is what basic physics is all about) apply everywhere absolutely.
Although you can be even more extreme than M-theory and go for something along the lines of Max-tegmark, and ask which mathematical
structure is isomorphic to our universe? and posit that in fact all different structures objectivley exist but only some can give rise to thinking beings. I actually quite go in for his ideas although diagrams like this do make my head explode:

http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/toe.html

Yep, experimental physics degree from UCD in 1993. Nothing mystical going on, I just suspect that the multi/universe might never be completely described with any theory, that it's kind of an irreducible system.

irreducible in what sense ? a never ending onion or too complex?

Whoa this two-front discussion is hard-going ...

keep it up

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

It's true within the context of say something like M-theory that the local laws of physics are dependant on where you are, but this is in the sense of parameters like the masses of certain particles being different etc, the fundamental laws of symmetry and invariance (which is what basic physics is all about) apply everywhere absolutely.

Hey, well, maybe M-theory will come up trumps and I'll have to retract about the physical reality thing. We'll see

irreducible in what sense ? a never ending onion or too complex?

Too ... detailed. I think (in a real, not a mystical sense), that the universe might be a Whole that we can only ever hope to describe incompletely, cos the only complete description possible is the universe itself

Going home now, have to do some real work tomorrow and Fri but praps we'll continue this at a later date. Heh, y'know I only came up with the idea of objective reality being a special case of subjective reality during this thread, but I like it, it's kind of elegant and it seems to be holding up pretty well

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Same here.
There is a physical reality which is consistent over a large volume of space.

Yeah i should have said this in previous post too!

But, y'know, this is a different thing entirely, and I probably shouldn't be introducing it here it'll only confuse things, but anyway ... Daveor have you done much programming? It has occurred to me that they way we (humans in general) conceptualise the world is object-oriented, but I haven't come across anything in Physics, say, that makes it inconceivable that there might be other ways (for other species, say) of conceptualisation. There might be consciousnesses in the universes that wouldn't be able to tell me from the computer in front of me, but that might be nevertheless conscious ... and I don't mean not be able distinguish me from the computer on account of low-resolution vision or something, I mean that they might see the world as processes rather than things

yeah its fascinating to speculate how other conciousnesses might percieve
reality, It would depend though on their evolutionary circumstance wouldn't you agree, they might get lucky and be in more in tune with
how things work. There is a candidate qmgrav theory called loop quantum gravity that goes in for reality being more about processes rather than things, I'm hazy on it, string theory's more fashionble but it's catching up

 

[Daveor]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Going home now, have to do some real work tomorrow and Fri but praps we'll continue this at a later date. Heh, y'know I only came up with the idea of objective reality being a special case of subjective reality during this thread, but I like it, it's kind of elegant and it seems to be holding up pretty well

cool, I believe the opposite but I think its a very interesting idea, especially for a physics head to have!
cheers for the chat

 

[Daveor]

yo potlatch

hey potlatch
i think you got my thumped xmas mix cd, sorry about the lack of a good tracklist,
I meant to reply to you ages ago but forgot
i think i got pete's it was full of
.|..| which i enjoyed

 

[potlatch]

Re: yo potlatch

hey potlatch
i think you got my thumped xmas mix cd, sorry about the lack of a good tracklist,
I meant to reply to you ages ago but forgot
i think i got pete's it was full of
.|..| which i enjoyed

AHhhhhhH! Cool. Twas a good'un. Remember the track listing?

So what are you thinking with that gives you this insight?
I agree with certain parts of what you say, but not your anti-science buzz. The scientific method is a way of discovering what is (subjectively) true for all humans (or, for the physical sciences, for all residents of this universe)

Yup, of course science informed that statement. But so has other things, like the stuff I did in politics and philosophy or me masters. I suppose my point was: scientific methodologies are useful for certain things but not everything. Methodologies are still human constructions, so while science is quite good at predicting or explaning physical phenomena (usually physically observable phenomena), but they're neither complete nor objective. They're informed by man's aesthetic experience of the world and the social processes through which these models of the world are developed. So you kind of have the whole problem again.

Uh, anyway, RE: The Bongo's post, I was thinking more about Heidegger's comments about truth rather than facticity, which is, surely, where science has a role.

Not anti-science, just anti-scientism.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Hmm
I think we're kind of going at this at cross-purposes.
If we're talking about physical truth like whether raw spuds are in fact the best food from a nutritional perspective, that's one thing - if can be experimentally verified, but it still will only be true in from a certain standpoint (that of humans). Subjective
If we're talking about the taste of raw spuds versus spinach, that's obviously subjective - as far as you know, the stranger could be getting a totally different taste off the spinach due to some genetic difference, and some things (e.g. a rock) can't taste the spinach at all. Subjective
If we're talking about the ethics of spinach versus spuds, we have to first decide what sort of society we want to live in, and then base our ethics on that. If we want to live in a spinach-free world, we decide spinach is evil. Subjective
But I think what you're saying is that it is important whether people think there is Objective Truth. Well, I agree. I wish everyone realised there isn't, which is why I'm here arguing with you

I think we are at cross-purposes...all I'm saying is that objective definitely does not equal subjective agreement. We're inclined to think things are objective when loads of people agree, but it is definitely not the same thing. You must agree on this point, because otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. So I'm not clear on what you mean by saying they are the same thing.

If their viewpoint affects their behaviour, and that affects yours, then there is obviously a point in debating (again, that's why I'm debating here). If not, then no point at all, I guess

Yeah, I'm just not clear on what can be going through your head as you debate the point. If there's no objective truth, then you can't think that you're right and they're wrong, or even that you're both wrong and trying to arrive at the truth together. How are you meant to view the debate? That you want to impose your subjective view on them?
I recall you speaking of life as a voyage of self-discovery before...but how does this make sense if all viewpoints are subjective? Your self-knowledge when you're five is as valid as that when you're seventy (fingers crossed)...so where's the progress?

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: yo potlatch

Yup, of course science informed that statement. But so has other things, like the stuff I did in politics and philosophy or me masters. I suppose my point was: scientific methodologies are useful for certain things but not everything. Methodologies are still human constructions, so while science is quite good at predicting or explaning physical phenomena (usually physically observable phenomena), but they're neither complete nor objective. They're informed by man's aesthetic experience of the world and the social processes through which these models of the world are developed. So you kind of have the whole problem again.

Hmm...again though, there's a difference between claiming that you have the absolute truth, and claiming that you aspire to an absolute truth. I very much doubt that anything I utter or think in my life will be the absolute truth, but I think some things are more correct than others. If there's only subjectivity then everything's on an equal footing.

 

[Jimmy Magee]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Too ... detailed. I think (in a real, not a mystical sense), that the universe might be a Whole that we can only ever hope to describe incompletely, cos the only complete description possible is the universe itself

I'm a bit late joining this physics lark, but to me it seems as if whether laws of physics hold locally or globally is irrelevant to their objectivity - all that matters is if the same laws would hold for any observer in a single time & place, no? I'm not sure that's even required - if discrepancies can be explained away in a consistent way, then it'd still count as objective (e.g. if two observers ended up on different sides of a quantum split, although I'm not sure that's even possible)

 

[potlatch]

Bad IOU

Facticity is one thing, but isn't 'truth' more about coherence?

Anyway, you guys should probably czech out Alain Badiou. He's some French philosopher who claims to have found some middle course between post-structuralism and mathematics - i.e. relativism and objectivism. But maybe not absolutism versus non-essentialism. Apparently truth is situational and the result of different orders of infinity, or something... and he's big into the concept of Evil.

Here's just loadza links:

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/5/alainbadiou.php
http://www.egs.edu/faculty/badiou.html
http://www.16beavergroup.org/journalisms/archives/000633.php
http://bulldog.unca.edu/~kjharlan/badiou/
http://www.isud.org/papers/pdfs/Santilli.pdf
http://www.crispinsartwell.com/badiou.htm

Take your pick!

 

[the bongo]

a little ramble

Facticity is one thing, but isn't 'truth' more about coherence?

no not really, facticity generally is coherent. so that ain't the difference. truth may issue forth from facticity, as the truth of sunflowers may issue forth/be taken from the object-painting by van gogh. heidegger, and probably husserl would posit that "truth" is an experiential-conscious-unconscious understanding of something.

truth is not just an understanding of something's function, or its colour, or any other accident. it is a total understanding of its Being (and probably being too). it would seem from this that truth is a function of understanding, and as such is subject centred, and therefore truth is subjective.

one could also say that facticity is subjective too, given that facticity as we understand it is solely an accumulation of accidents/attributes. also, experience has shown me that i constantly have to "realign" what i consider factual because it becomes distorted over time. so facticity is not an attribute of the thing-in-itself, but of the interpretation of the accidents. this brings us right back to the old socratic position, the crisis of certainty.

in fact, all statments of fact , that "X is the case", is like any judgement of value, a normative statement to the effect that "i experience sensory information of a thing i understand to be there and be X". or other similar variation.

so we cannot certainly assert the existence of objective phenomena outside of our own existence, however we can posit Being. Being cannot be subjective because it is a state which must be in order for mental phenomena to be. we can assert confidently the objective existence of a few things; the cartesian "I am", the existence of being, or rather Being, and the existence of mental phenomena. the "what" of these things is subject to interpretation, however.

say we say that all things are mental phenomena, then if i cannot understand some aspects of these occurences, then can that be taken as an indication of the existence of beings (mental or otherwise) outside my consciousness? if so, what?

 

[egg_]

Re: New Colour Soul in the top 20!!!

Oooh a lot to talk about.

I think we are at cross-purposes...all I'm saying is that objective definitely does not equal subjective agreement. We're inclined to think things are objective when loads of people agree, but it is definitely not the same thing. You must agree on this point, because otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate. So I'm not clear on what you mean by saying they are the same thing.

Here's what I mean
1.
There is no such thing as 'objective' when it comes to cultural stuff like art or to ethics. There probably is not an objective reality even when it comes to the physical universe
2.
What we call 'objective' is simply a special case of subjective where everyone agrees, whether because of similar cultural backgrounds (for cultural stuff) or similar physical structures (for physical stuff)

 

[egg_]

I'm a bit late joining this physics lark, but to me it seems as if whether laws of physics hold locally or globally is irrelevant to their objectivity - all that matters is if the same laws would hold for any observer in a single time & place, no?

So things could be locally objectively true? Isn't that a contradiction in terms? For something to be objectively true wouldn't it have to be so universally (or multiversally)?

 

[egg_]

Shit, I'm starting to sound like a philosopher, which I don't mean to
Look, it doesn't matter a shit whether the physical universe has an objective physical reality - we still have to deal with it in the same way. potlatch - politics and aesthetic sensibilities don't really have any bearing on that sort of thing. Our physical structure is what determines our relationship with the physical world.

But it does matter whether we think ethics is objective or subjective. If we admit/realise it is subjective, then it potentially gives us much more conscious control over the societies we live in