Fundamental Attribution Error - a case against objectivism

[Mountain Lion]

Why objectivism is a flawed philosophy (popularized in US by a literary talent who lacked scientific insight and training, and was, most likely, influenced by the emotional baggage of her traumatic childhood experiences)? Consider the attribution theory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the scientific evidence confirming the existence of the fundamental attribution error. Perhaps, second guessing one's own judgments and critically assessing them for subjective interpretations is not a bad idea after all :)

[Lights]

Why objectivism is a flawed philosophy (popularized in US by a literary talent who lacked scientific insight and training)? Consider the attribution theory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the scientific evidence confirming the existence of the fundamental attribution error. Perhaps, second guessing one's own judgments and critically assess them for subjective interpretations is not a bad idea after all :)

Are you kidding? It isn't situational! It's just a bunch of lazy parasites and moochers! :laugh:

Good link. :thumbsup:

[thod]

The thing about objectivism is that its the oldest philosophical stance there is. That there is a real world of objects out there, which we perceive with our senses, processed by our brain.

When I hear the nuts on this forum going on about it I have to wonder about them. All other philosophical positions came about by asking "what if this is not so". If you could speak to a cave man you would find he was an objectivist. As is your pet dog.

[Lights]

The thing about objectivism is that its the oldest philosophical stance there is. That there is a real world of objects out there, which we perceive with our senses, processed by our brain.

When I hear the nuts on this forum going on about it I have to wonder about them. All other philosophical positions came about by asking "what if this is not so". If you could speak to a cave man you would find he was an objectivist. As is your pet dog.

Exactly, but I don't think we can even percieve objective reality. Here is my reasoning.

1. There is an objective reality.
2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.
3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.
4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.
5. The only reality that has meaning to humans is the relative one, since if we did not exist, there would be no one to percieve the objective one. Whereas the relative reality would cease to exist with us.
6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.

So you can see why I completely reject Ayn Rand's conclusions.

[thod]

Yea that is simply plato's allegory of the cave. The reality exists but we can only see the shadows.

I too reject Ayn Rand. Not because she is wrong but because she is so simplistic. Its the philosophhy of a 5 year old. You read her and then think, whats next, hoping that that was the intro to something. You hope there will be something profound around the corner, but thats all there is to it. Then you think why did I waste my time, I already knew this.

[Lights]

Yea that is simply plato's allegory of the cave. The reality exists but we can only see the shadows.

Wow, it is! :laugh: I came at it from the Taoist perspective, so it astonishes me that I came to the same conclusion.

I too reject Ayn Rand. Not because she is wrong but because she is so simplistic. Its the philosophhy of a 5 year old. You read her and then think, whats next, hoping that that was the intro to something. You hope there will be something profound around the corner, but thats all there is to it. Then you think why did I waste my time, I already knew this.

I find her belief that people can know the objective world to be wrong. I believe we can only know it, relatively. To say that we can understand the objective universe through reason just seems ludicrous to me. Other than that, I agree with you. I was reviewing Piaget's cognitive stages, and came to the realization that many of the Randists sound very preoperational in the nature of many of their arguments because it seems they find it difficult to take the point of view of other people.

The entire useful jist of her philosophy could be summed up by saying, "It's in the best interest of everyone, if you look out for yourself." And even that is situationally limited.

[Bossy Mom]

Why objectivism is a flawed philosophy (popularized in US by a literary talent who lacked scientific insight and training, and was, most likely, influenced by the emotional baggage of her traumatic childhood experiences)? Consider the attribution theory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the scientific evidence confirming the existence of the fundamental attribution error. Perhaps, second guessing one's own judgments and critically assessing them for subjective interpretations is not a bad idea after all :)

Emotional baggage of her traumatic childhood experiences? Ayn Rand grew up in czarist St. Petersburg, Russia, the eldest of three daughters. Her father, who she adored, was a pharmacist. She was encouraged to read and expand her mind as a child. When the Bolsheviks took over when she was a teenager, she experienced the horrors of the collectivist dictatorial state. She managed to get out of Russia and flee to the U.S., where she struggled as a young author.

She believed that man can be an heroic figure. I would study all of her books more and argue more vociferously if I didn't have to work full time and actually have a life. I'm not a government bureaucrat who can sit at her desk all day and demean philosophies I find threatening to the elitists who want to rule the world. My life is not that empty.

[Santana28]

but a philosophy is only as useful as its real-world application, is it not?

thats why i love to study Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia...

if you can take a sophisticated idea and translate it into a means that can be easily accepted and digested by the masses - then you change the world. it doesn't have to be a perfect philosophy, or flawless - but if you can translate the general theme and make it work...

[Bossy Mom]

but a philosophy is only as useful as its real-world application, is it not?

thats why i love to study Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia...

if you can take a sophisticated idea and translate it into a means that can be easily accepted and digested by the masses - then you change the world. it doesn't have to be a perfect philosophy, or flawless - but if you can translate the general theme and make it work...

That is why Ayn Rand's philosophy works for me. I use it in my everyday life. I work hard at my job, support myself and my daughter, and I stand up for what I know is right. I worry sometimes about those who want power over my life (collectivists), but I don't want to become obessed with their hatred of me and my code of morality. I can't change the world by myself, but I try to live an honest life full of integrity -- one I can go to my death with and have no regrets.

[Santana28]

That is why Ayn Rand's philosophy works for me. I use it in my everyday life. I work hard at my job, support myself and my daughter, and I stand up for what I know is right. I worry sometimes about those who want power over my life (collectivists), but I don't want to become obessed with their hatred of me and my code of morality. I can't change the world by myself, but I try to live an honest life full of integrity -- one I can go to my death with and have no regrets.

exactly. which is why her philosophy is perhaps more useful and effective than others which may hold up better under stricter investigation.

[Mountain Lion]

Unfortunately, such misguided beliefs prevent people from fulfilling their potential. Slaves can be happy to :blank:

[blueback]

Why objectivism is a flawed philosophy (popularized in US by a literary talent who lacked scientific insight and training, and was, most likely, influenced by the emotional baggage of her traumatic childhood experiences)? Consider the attribution theory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the scientific evidence confirming the existence of the fundamental attribution error. Perhaps, second guessing one's own judgments and critically assessing them for subjective interpretations is not a bad idea after all :)

I enjoy this board because every now and then someone actually surprises me.

I've been trying to figure out how you interpreted the fundamental attribution error (FAE) as evidence that objectivism is flawed and I have to say that I'm having a hard time. The only thing I've been able to come up with is the possibility that maybe you think that Rand was accidentally succumbing to it when she talked about objectivism. . .but that makes absolutely no sense to someone who understands both objectivism and the FAE. So, I'm surprised because you seem to be laying out a short, but theoretically rational, argument that can't possibly based on sound logic.

The FAE says that people tend to overemphasize the role of personality when judging the actions of others and overemphasize the role of the environment when judging their own actions. Cutting someone off in traffic is a good example. When it happens to you, you say the guy is a jerk, when you do it to someone else, you say that it's because you're in a hurry.

Objectivism says that man's awareness of his own existence is the foundation of all knowledge, and that by extension, rationality is his tool for understanding reality, interacting with it, and eventually achieving something.

I don't see how the definition of those ideas interact. . .so you must not have been talking about the definitions. Since I can't see a coherent argument to answer, I'll just defend objectivism.


Objectivism is not flawed, at its core it is the most "correct" philosophy ever conceived. The foundation of objectivism is that each person is aware of their own existence. It can't be otherwise, because simply to argue otherwise requires that one be aware of themselves. Then, each person uses their reason to analyze their own existence. Then, each person uses their reason to analyze everything that isn't themselves. From there, every person must interact with reality on their own terms, they cannot do otherwise.

As you move further away from the core, people gradually being to disagree on the specifics. Rand had her opinions regarding how objectivism should guide people through life. However, she fully embraced the spirit of objectivism by never FORCING anyone to live by her philosophy. One of the principles of objectivism is that each person is a God unto themselves and it is morally wrong to initiate force against another independent person. Anyone who encourages other people to think for themselves is a closet objectivist. Anyone who encourages (or coerces) other people to accept dogma is violating the principles of objectivism.

[Lights]

Objectivism says that man's awareness of his own existence is the foundation of all knowledge, and that by extension, rationality is his tool for understanding reality, interacting with it, and eventually achieving something.

It's called cognitive and/or perceptual bias. It's the fact that the objective reality cannot be understood by man, because he can only percieve it through his own subjective senses and thinking. Therefore man only knows a relative reality that is based on objective reality, that is limited to only that which he can percieve either through his senses or reasoning. The FAE is proof that man is prone to one cognitive bias, which is a strong case for relativism.

If you are curious where I am coming from then send me a PM.

[Bossy Mom]

Unfortunately, such misguided beliefs prevent people from fulfilling their potential. Slaves can be happy to :blank:

Are you saying I'm a slave and that my life is misguided? Collectivists will downgrade anyone to try to create cracks in their victim's self-confidence. They just cannot understand how it could be possible that we don't need or want them.

FYI, I don't want to own a company or be President (in the collectivist mind, aka God). I like my life the way it is. Responsibilities - to my family, my community, my country, and myself - do not create slavery. The collectivist's use of words attempt to "muddy the waters," but clear thinking is immune to it. Collectivists are also masters of intimidation - oops, I'm immune to it.

[Mountain Lion]

I think you are a wonderful, caring and intelligent person. That's why I am perplexed as to what you could possibly have against the philosophy of humanism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But it's your choice, of course :)

[blueback]

It's called cognitive and/or perceptual bias. It's the fact that the objective reality cannot be understood by man, because he can only percieve it through his own subjective senses and thinking.


Semantics.
If I reach for a cup that my eyes subjectively inform me is on the desk and my hand closes around what is indeed a cup in exactly the location and configuration I subjectively perceived it to be. . .then there is no effective difference between subjective and objective.

If you want to get technical and mysterious at the same time, the photons that bounced off the cup and carried information about it to my eyes didn't actually do that until I looked at the cup. When I looked, all the photons retroactively did what they would have done. Does that make reality less objective or does it make my perception of it more subjective?

Basically, you can't start the argument with the idea that someone's perception of reality is subjective. That is, at most, a flaw in their personality rather then their senses. People who make the effort, and can stand the discomfort, do perceive reality objectively. Most people don't want to actually understand the world the way it is because doing so causes them too much pain, so they willfully interfere with their own perception of reality. Their preception isn't subjective, they're just perceiving badly.


Therefore man only knows a relative reality that is based on objective reality, that is limited to only that which he can percieve either through his senses or reasoning.


Sure, and boy, we sure can get a lot done even though we're handicapped like that. You're not making a point you're just professing your inability to make one. Claiming that it's impossible to understand reality basically invalidates any possible attempt to understand reality. If that's your position then what are you doing here?


The FAE is proof that man is prone to one cognitive bias, which is a strong case for relativism.


Sure. . .are you saying that there's a problem with relativism? I think relativism is pretty accurate.





blueback added to this post, 11 minutes and 10 seconds later...

I think you are a wonderful, caring and intelligent person. That's why I am perplexed as to what you could possibly have against the philosophy of humanism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But it's your choice, of course :)

I think this is the first mention of humanism in this thread, so why would you think anyone was against it?

Humanism is fun. It's like the love child between objectivism and christianity. It's got all the feel-good rhetoric of christianity and all the assumptions of objectivism. It's like rational thought for people who don't like the coldness and impartiality of rational thought.

That being said, I do like most humanists. I just think they should take that final step into objectivism.

[Lights]

Semantics.
If I reach for a cup that my eyes subjectively inform me is on the desk and my hand closes around what is indeed a cup in exactly the location and configuration I subjectively perceived it to be. . .then there is no effective difference between subjective and objective.

If you want to get technical and mysterious at the same time, the photons that bounced off the cup and carried information about it to my eyes didn't actually do that until I looked at the cup. When I looked, all the photons retroactively did what they would have done. Does that make reality less objective or does it make my perception of it more subjective?

Basically, you can't start the argument with the idea that someone's perception of reality is subjective. That is, at most, a flaw in their personality rather then their senses. People who make the effort, and can stand the discomfort, do perceive reality objectively. Most people don't want to actually understand the world the way it is because doing so causes them too much pain, so they willfully interfere with their own perception of reality. Their preception isn't subjective, they're just perceiving badly.

I disagree. Here is my case.

1. There is an objective reality.
2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.
3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.
4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.
5. The objective reality only has relative meaning to us.
6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.

With that case I make these charges.

1. Reason is only an objective means of interpreting relative reality.

Since reason is limited to understandings and experiences based on perception, it cannot be utilized to understand objective reality.

2. We cannot extrapolate absolute or universal truths from the objective reality.

We can extrapolate absolute or universal truths in relative reality. However, those truths are limited to the parameters by which they were derived. They are only true under all the conditions by which they were defined.

[Bossy Mom]

I think you are a wonderful, caring and intelligent person. That's why I am perplexed as to what you could possibly have against the philosophy of humanism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But it's your choice, of course :)

My humanism is for those I value. I want to help the people in the Sudan, who are largely ignored by the West. That situation fills me with horror, just as Cambodia did under Pol Pot, etc. I think people in the West fear a repeat of Somalia. But I try to help those I have a chance of helping. I volunteer for organ donation, the American Liver Foundation, and the American Heart Association. Tomorrow I'm giving a talk at my daughter's school about my experiences with alcoholism. I want to help those teenagers I can reach so they can get a glimpse of what their future might hold if they continue on their destructive paths.

No one is forcing me to help anyone else, just like I don't believe it is moral to force others to help me with my chosen charities. I do it of my own volition.

[Mountain Lion]

That sounds very reasonable :) The value judgments are subjective though. That's why humanism doesn't pass judgments on the value of any particular life and seeks to inspire all human beings to reach their potential, not just the selected few.

Thus, even though

Humanism is fun. It's like the love child between objectivism and christianity. It's got all the feel-good rhetoric of christianity and all the assumptions of objectivism.

is a very interesting perspective, it's incorrect :)

[blueback]

...a very interesting perspective, it's incorrect :)

Oh, well that settles that, then. I'm glad someone was here to point out that I was wrong. It's a relief, actually, to have it pointed out to me that I'm so wrong it's not even worth explaining why. I should probably just abandon every conclusion I've ever reached and start over from scratch, since I've just now realized that I'm wildly off base.

Starting from scratch. . .

Lets see, objectivism is a philosophy defined and explained by a single person, Ayn Rand. Humanism is a philosophy what changes depending on who you ask. According to Frederick Edwords, Executive Director of the American Humanist Association, there are at least eight different brands of humanism: literary, renaissance, cultural, philosophical, christian, modern, secular and religious. (BTW, the AHA is a self-described religious humanist oganization)

That being said, there are some things that all humanists seem to agree on. These things are hard to state categorically, since there is considerable overlap between seperate statements, but there are the three manifestos. . .so I figure that's a good place to start:


1) Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

2) Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.

3) Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

4) Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

5) Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

6) Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.


The third manifesto is a product of the American Humanist Association, which is a religious humanist group, so secular humanists might not agree with everything they say. Objectivism, on the other hand, is much easier to define because Rand stated the tenents quite clearly:


A) Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

B) Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

C) Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

D) The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.


Comparing the two point-by-point is difficult because objectivism is a system of thought while humanism is a list. Objectivism starts at the most basic level, below which it's impossible to define anything, and works its way up through levels of complexity in the real world. Humanism jumps back and forth between various complex levels in the real world, without ever really defining a foundation.

That being said, there are points that the two philosophies seem to agree on. They both assume the world is what it is, independant of anything man might wish it to be. Objectivism states this quite clearly (A) and humanism seems to avoid the issue, but it would be difficult to support points (1) and (2) without this assumption. They both hold reason to be the key to knowledge and morality. Again, objectivism is clear (B) and humanism supports the idea with points (1) and (3). Also, the two philosophies seem to agree on the issue of what humans should live for. Objectivism states that each person lives first for themselves (C) while humanism states, more broadly, that humans are social and whatever benefits the group benefits the individual (5) and (6).

There. The two philosophies agree on the basics, only objectivism is much clearer.

[Mountain Lion]

Thank you for your effort. Unfortunately, your perspective seems to influence your logic and your judgment.

It might have something to do with subjective nature of human thought :)

Just like objectivism, humainsm is a value system. It's based on assumptions (all of which you've listed, but none of which you think it makes). Humanists are not objective, nor do they pretend to be ;)

[blueback]

If you're so sure you're right that you can't be bothered to explain why I'm wrong then why do you keep replying? I joined this board because most of the people on it are inclined to explain their logic, we're INTJs after all. We aren't swayed by people who can't explain themselves.

You're not right until you prove it.

[Mountain Lion]

I already did explain, you just don't listen :blank:

There are no right or wrong answers, only choices ;)

[thod]

Please explain why you are different from an ESFP. There is one objective reality and each man processes that. All men should reach the same conclusions. Yet they do not.

When I walk around my house there is dust on all the surfaces. Yet I do not see it. The only time I notice it is if its brought to my attention, otherwise it does not exist to me. Yet if I am simply processing sensory information it should be equally visible at all times.

If there is an objective reality there is no objective mind to perceive it. Instead of asking what is the nature of objective reality you must first answer what is the nature of yourself. Without that you will forever be looking at that objective reality through a colored lens.

[pavman]

That sounds very reasonable :) The value judgments are subjective though.

I wasn't really looking into getting into this debate, but when I read this I had to respond....

I disagree that value judgments are subjective, in and of themselves. It depends on how one concludes value judgments based on the evidence at hand.

For instance....
If I see a person who is a slob in the way they dress, messy in the way they live at home, and nonsensical in words, I will make a value judgment based on the evidence that this is a person I probably don't want to know, or that this person is mentally ill, or, at the very least, they have issues that they need to work through.

Of course, there has to be repeated data regarding their condition, and not just a one-off time. ... ie. they have to always dress like a slob, never clean their place, and never make sense. Eventually I draw value conclusions from their actions, way they live, and how they interact. But its all factual based primarily on my perceptions of what I see, in the details. I have come to trust myself in this regard for the most part.

I realized after writing all this out, you guys might be discussing something much more specific than I thought, so this post may not be applicable. However, for posterities' sake (and to increase my # of posts), I will post anyway.

[thod]

If I see a person who is a slob in the way they dress, messy in the way they live at home, and nonsensical in words, I will make a value judgment based on the evidence that this is a person I probably don't want to know, or that this person is mentally ill, or, at the very least, they have issues that they need to work through.


Huh? they could just be an INTP.

[Mountain Lion]

I will make a value judgment based on the evidence...

Based on the evidence and :huh: If you only have evidence, all you have are limited facts. To make a judgment you need to interpret those facts. Based either on your own self-interest (which is a subject to interpretation) or something else ;) Interpretation of facts allows for subjectivity.





It depends on how one concludes value judgments...
Haha... good point :)

[Lights]

If you're so sure you're right that you can't be bothered to explain why I'm wrong then why do you keep replying? I joined this board because most of the people on it are inclined to explain their logic, we're INTJs after all. We aren't swayed by people who can't explain themselves.

You're not right until you prove it.

Where the heck do you get off saying that? I made a logical case against against objectivism and you just ignored it and went off fighting ML. Hypocrisy, thy name is blueback.

[blueback]

I already did explain, you just don't listen :blank:


There's not much to listen to.

Your "explanation" consists of: "Perhaps, second guessing one's own judgments and critically assessing them for subjective interpretations is not a bad idea after all" - "...misguided beliefs prevent people from fulfilling their potential" - "The value judgments are subjective..." - "your perspective seems to influence your logic and your judgment" - "It might have something to do with subjective nature of human thought " - "Just like objectivism, humainsm is a value system. It's based on assumptions (all of which you've listed, but none of which you think it makes). Humanists are not objective, nor do they pretend to be"

All I've been able to get out of that is that you think that objectivism is wrong because the people who created it and live by it are making a subjective decision that is no more correct then any other decision they could make. However, by that logic, thinking itself is not worth doing because no one can ever hope to get over the hurdle of their own subjective interpretation of reality.

Unless you hid a code that I was supposed to unravel by reading only every fifth letter. . .that's all the "explanation" you've provided for your conclusion.

Perhaps that really is what you think. It would certainly explain why you are either unwilling or incapable of supporting your point.


There are no right or wrong answers, only choices ;)


As much as I respect your right to have a opinion, your opinion is still wrong. The difference between right and wrong in making the choice to shoot an innocent person is pretty obvious. There, your statement is false.

Feel free to debate one or more of my points at some point.





blueback added to this post, 3 minutes and 42 seconds later...

Where the heck do you get off saying that? I made a logical case against against objectivism and you just ignored it and went off fighting ML. Hypocrisy, thy name is blueback.

Sorry for pissing you off. It was unintentional.

I posted that directly under mountain lion's post and many posts under your post. . .so, you know. . .I'm sorry that I didn't put mountain lion's name in it. I guess I can see how that could be confusing.





blueback added to this post, 28 minutes and 4 seconds later...

(american heritage dictionary)
objective: Based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

relative: Considered in comparison with something else OR dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute

subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world


1. There is an objective reality.


Agreed. Although calling it "objective reality" is a bit redundant. I think we are agreeing that Reality (capital R) is real, but is different from the pseudo-realities that people are capable of creating for themselves.


2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.


Sure. We sense light because it's not darkness. We sense green because it's not red or blue. We sense sound because it's not stillness. Basically, we open up our senses and compare the signals. Only a difference between signals produces information. If all a computer ever sensed was a string of "1"'s then it would never gather any information. If all we ever saw was darkness then we would never gather any information.

However, this definition is a physiological one and is distinct from the psychological one (above).


3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.


Here you have jumped from physical senses to intangible thought processes. This is the difference between top-down and bottom-up perception (human factors).

I would argue that our understanding isn't "limited" by the parameters we arbitrarily agreed on to describe objective reality. Our understanding is enhanced by those agreements. Because everyone knows what a mile means, we can communicate about places we've never been. If someone told me their home town was a mile across I could get a pretty good understanding of what that meant simply because I know how far a mile is. Those agreements allow us to understand things without ever having to personally experience them.


4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.


Absolutely, although I would call it "pseudo-reality", or just "imagination," because that's what it is. Our brain is capable of recreating the effects of directly sensing Reality without actually sensing it. That gives us memory, imagination, and rational thought. We constantly create and destroy pseudo-realities when we solve problems and predict the future.


5. The objective reality only has relative meaning to us.


You lost me here. Whatever logical leap you were making isn't being communicated to me.


6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.


This is just a restatement of point #4


1. Reason is only an objective means of interpreting relative reality.


Well, not quite. Since "relative reality" is the imaginary world that people use to remember the past and predict the future, it's different.

When you say relative reality are you talking about the reality that some people live in when they voluntarily mis-perceive the world? Like self-delusion? If so then different people delude themselves to different extents. I would argue that some people, through discipline and introspection, are capable of seeing the world exactly the way it is. They might not understand everything, but they aren't missing anything.


Since reason is limited to understandings and experiences based on perception, it cannot be utilized to understand objective reality.


100% wrong.

Reason is the ONLY thing we have that gives us the slightest chance of understanding objective reality. The only way to understand Reality is to compare one sensation against another to make a prediction about a third. That is reason, and it is the primary reason humans are at the top of the food chain right now.


2. We cannot extrapolate absolute or universal truths from the objective reality.


What about gravity? That is universal in that it is everywhere, and we understand it only because we extrapolated from various relative measurements of Reality.

Maybe you are talking about things that are less tangible. . .like why are we here or why do bad things happen? If so, then no, there is no way to answer those questions by observing Reality. However, that's not a problem with us or with Reality, it's just the way things are. By the same token, there is no way to prove there even is an answer to those questions that we are unable to reach.

The only way to understand something is to get outside it. We can get outside a toaster, so we can understand it. We can't get outside Reality, so we can't "understand it" in the "why are we here" sense. But, like I said, neither can we say for sure that there is an "outside" to get to.


We can extrapolate absolute or universal truths in relative reality. However, those truths are limited to the parameters by which they were derived. They are only true under all the conditions by which they were defined.


I guess I need to know your definition of relative reality. Are you talking about the pseudo-reality people use to problem solve or are you talking about the "fog" that some self-deluded people live their lives in?

[Mountain Lion]

People who make the effort, and can stand the discomfort, do perceive reality objectively. Most people don't want to actually understand the world the way it is because doing so causes them too much pain, so they willfully interfere with their own perception of reality. Their preception isn't subjective, they're just perceiving badly.


Just perceiving badly, but you are not... right? You are not perceiving badly. Because you are omnipotent. You are God.

One of the principles of objectivism is that each person is a God unto themselves...

How could I possibly argue against god. But then I am God too. Hmmm... I like your logic. I convert ;)

And as a god, I should find some godly duty to do, I think. Good luck :)

[Lights]

Agreed. Although calling it "objective reality" is a bit redundant. I think we are agreeing that Reality (capital R) is real, but is different from the pseudo-realities that people are capable of creating for themselves.

I'm calling it the objective reality, because while it is the true reality, it isn't the reality that we human understand.

Sure. We sense light because it's not darkness. We sense green because it's not red or blue. We sense sound because it's not stillness. Basically, we open up our senses and compare the signals. Only a difference between signals produces information. If all a computer ever sensed was a string of "1"'s then it would never gather any information. If all we ever saw was darkness then we would never gather any information.

However, this definition is a physiological one and is distinct from the psychological one (above).

Um...you really didn't make any argument against what I had to say. Sure I made physiological comparisons. Human perception is based entirely upon our relative senses. And what we percieve simply is our relative perception. Does the human perception of "red" exist in objective reality? When we sense color, we are simply picking up a wavelength of light with our senses and then interpreting it as "red". We don't see that wavelength of light as it exists in reality. For example, try describing "red" to somebody who was born completely blind.

But I also said that our systems of measurement and human cognition are relative because they are limited to our perceptions.

Here you have jumped from physical senses to intangible thought processes. This is the difference between top-down and bottom-up perception (human factors).

I would argue that our understanding isn't "limited" by the parameters we arbitrarily agreed on to describe objective reality. Our understanding is enhanced by those agreements. Because everyone knows what a mile means, we can communicate about places we've never been. If someone told me their home town was a mile across I could get a pretty good understanding of what that meant simply because I know how far a mile is. Those agreements allow us to understand things without ever having to personally experience them.

I'm not arguing that our perception of "relative reality" is greatly increased by having objective measurements, but it does little for describing objective reality which exists outside of our ability to comprehend.

Absolutely, although I would call it "pseudo-reality", or just "imagination," because that's what it is. Our brain is capable of recreating the effects of directly sensing Reality without actually sensing it. That gives us memory, imagination, and rational thought. We constantly create and destroy pseudo-realities when we solve problems and predict the future.

It's not imagination at all. It's every human beings every sensory experience and perception. Redefining my terms to suit your argument is nothing but straw manning it. :rolleyes:

You lost me here. Whatever logical leap you were making isn't being communicated to me.

We can only understand the objective reality based on our perceptions, so we can only percieve it realitively.

This is just a restatement of point #4

Not really. I'm making the argument that every individual human perception is at least slightly different.

Well, not quite. Since "relative reality" is the imaginary world that people use to remember the past and predict the future, it's different.

Once again you are redefining my terms to straw man the argument. :rolleyes:

When you say relative reality are you talking about the reality that some people live in when they voluntarily mis-perceive the world? Like self-delusion? If so then different people delude themselves to different extents. I would argue that some people, through discipline and introspection, are capable of seeing the world exactly the way it is. They might not understand everything, but they aren't missing anything.

As I said, I'm talking about "realtive reality" as that which is every perception and sensory experience a person has.

100% wrong.

Considering you couldn't make a single argument against my claims without trying to redefine my terms, I believe even more in the tenets of my arguments.

Reason is the ONLY thing we have that gives us the slightest chance of understanding objective reality. The only way to understand Reality is to compare one sensation against another to make a prediction about a third. That is reason, and it is the primary reason humans are at the top of the food chain right now.

Nope, reason is based in human cognition, which in turn is based on knowledge and experiences derived from relative human perception.

What about gravity? That is universal in that it is everywhere, and we understand it only because we extrapolated from various relative measurements of Reality.

Yeah, it exists within our "relative reality". It's an observation of something that exists in objective reality, but we have no perception of what gravity is in objective reality.

Maybe you are talking about things that are less tangible. . .like why are we here or why do bad things happen? If so, then no, there is no way to answer those questions by observing Reality. However, that's not a problem with us or with Reality, it's just the way things are. By the same token, there is no way to prove there even is an answer to those questions that we are unable to reach.

Not at all, I just think the concepts may be a little over your head. I actually had worked out this case with some NTs on another forum and they had problem understanding the concepts. This may just be a cognitive limitation on your part.

The only way to understand something is to get outside it. We can get outside a toaster, so we can understand it. We can't get outside Reality, so we can't "understand it" in the "why are we here" sense. But, like I said, neither can we say for sure that there is an "outside" to get to.

Get outside it? As in visualize it? As in relative reality?

I guess I need to know your definition of relative reality. Are you talking about the pseudo-reality people use to problem solve or are you talking about the "fog" that some self-deluded people live their lives in?

THANK YOU. If you didn't understand relative reality, you should have simply asked instead of trying to argue against me with only half a conception of what I was talking about.

Relative reality is all of our perceptions and sensory experiences.

If you were an alien, living on a different planet at a different point in the universe, then all the human objective observations of the universe would probably be non existent to you. The parameters by which we percieve the universe could be completely different to aliens on another planet. For example, we percieve time the way we do because of the speed we are moving, however if our planet were moving faster, then we would experience time slower than we actually do.

A scientist by the name of Einstein noticed this concept and deemed it the theory of relativity. All the measurements by which we understand time, (days, minutes, seconds) are based upon increments of how long it takes our planet to move around the sun. They are relative measurements, by which we make objective observations. In essence, every objective observation is based upon a relative measurement. Even our senses are relative experiences.

If you were an alien who interpreted a higher wavelength of light, then concepts such as "red" and "green" would probably be nonexistant to you. These are interpretations of light relative to human beings. We can even observe this on our own planet? What does "red" and "green" mean to a colorblind person? They of course, interpret these colors differently and have no conception of how others perceive those colors. More proof of the relative nature of our sensory experiences.

We can only percieve the objective universe through relative means. It isn't just "largely based" but completely. There are no perceptions we can make outside of our relatively defined objective measures or our relative perceptions. Our entire conception of reality is in our heads, as a result of relative perceptions of the universe that come from relative sensory experiences. We have no picture of objective reality outside of our relative reality.

We can't percieve the objective reality, only the relative one. Understanding our relative reality is extremely important, because it is based on objective realty, but objective reality exists completely outside our conception and therefore it only has relative meaning to us.

[blueback]

I noticed that you constantly complained about my definitions, but you didn't bother to include the definitions I quoted out of the dictionary when you replied. I stated those definitions explicitly so that we would be using the words the same way. Your entire argument seems to hinge on exactly what "relative" and "objective" mean, so we won't get anywhere if we disagree on the meaning.

So, for your edification, here are the definitions again:
(american heritage dictionary)
objective: Based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

relative: Considered in comparison with something else OR dependent on or interconnected with something else; not absolute

As you should be able to see now, the words have specific meanings. In the case of "relative", it has two meanings that are similar, but distinctly different in this context. One is that things are understood as compared to other things, and the other is that things are not absolute.

"We don't see that wavelength of light as it exists in reality."

Duh.
That's because it's impossible to gather information without altering reality. It's called the observer effect because all observations have an effect. If we wan't to see something red, we have to put something in front of the photon and force it to bounce off. The difference between the way a red phonot bounces off our eye and the way a green photon bounces off is relative.

In a very real sense, the photon doesn't exist until we observe it. If the photon never interacts with anything, then it could have just as easily not existed. In fact, if it never interacts with anything then there is no way to prove it ever existed. Photons keep bouncing off our eyes (differently) which provides us with information about reality.

We know that "things" exist because the information we collect about their existence is consistent. If a red photon hits my right eye and another hits my left eye I can use the angle between them to figure out how far away the red thing that produced the photons is. That is how we gather information about reality.

What you said, about not being able to see a photon the way it really exists in reality, is nonsense. The only way we can see it is to interfere with it. If it was allowed to exist in its "natural" state then that would preclude our observing it, which would mean it didn't exist.

Maybe we don't all gather the exact same information from the difference between a red photon and a green photon, but the difference is the same. 5 - 4 = 3 - 2 = 1 Just because we start out with different values doesn't mean we can't gather the same information, it's all relative after all. If someone is unable to sense a red photon then they will have a gap in their information network. There will be relationships they can't sense.

Everyone is limited in their ability to distinguish differences between bits of reality. Some people (color blind) are more limited then the average. No human is capable of distinguishing the difference between radio waves and infra-red waves, although they are simply different places on the electro-magnetic spectrum. We can sense a small portion of that spectrum, but not all of it. However, that hasn't stopped us from discovering the difference with tools other then the ones we evolved. We can build instruments that translate the differences into wavelengths we can distinguish. That means that we aren't missing anything, we do understand objective reality. Our physical senses are limited, but not our ability to gather information.

"I'm talking about "realtive reality" as that which is every perception and sensory experience a person has"

Okay, that is the psychological interpretation. Earlier you were talking about the phsysiological interpretation.

The difference between a red and green photon is relative. No one "experiences" them the same way, but the difference between the two experiences is the same, which is why we can gather the same information. Everyone who's not colorblind agrees on what green is and what red is. A colorblind person doesn't sense a difference between the two signals, which means they don't gather any information.

Once the information gathered by the senses is stored in the brain it can be recalled. What our brain stores is a map of the information it gathered about objective reality. As long as a person gathered the information correctly, their map will be indistinguishable from actual reality. If the map was only relative to itself, then it wouldn't be useful for making predictions about objective reality. However, the map that humans hold in thier head IS accurate. Some people have a more accurate and complete map then others, and therefore everyone's is slightly different, but the map is still an accurate representation of objective reality.

"reason is based in human cognition, which in turn is based on knowledge and experiences derived from relative human perception"

How is that differenent from what I said? I said "The only way to understand Reality is to compare one sensation against another to make a prediction about a third. That is reason..."

In The Miracle Worker, Hellen Keller's big dramatic moment is when she finally makes the connection between the sign for water and actual water. For a person who wasn't as handicapped as her, making that connection wouldn't be difficult, in fact it would just happen automatically. The fewer senses a person has the harder it is for them to distinguish differences between signals and to gather information. The more senses a person has the easier it is for them to gather information. That moment when she made the connection was an instant of pure reason.

If we were completely senseless, without even the sense of touch, we would have no information. Without information we would have no reason, because we'd have nothing to reason about. We would be unable to even become aware of the difference between ourselves and objective reality. Since we wouldn't sense a difference between any of the signals not coming in from the outside.

"It's an observation of something that exists in objective reality, but we have no perception of what gravity is in objective reality"

Maybe the problem is you're not providing enough context in your answers. I'm not sure if you're trying to say that gravity really exists, but we can't be sure. . .or if you're trying to say that gravity exists, and we can be sure it exists, but we can't actually recreate it inside our minds. . .or if you're trying to say that we know that gravity exists but we don't actually know what it is, just that it has an effect on other things in reality.

However, based only on a literal interpretation of your words as they appear in order, you are wrong. We know exactly what gravity IS in objective reality. It is a relationship between things. Things with mass are attracted to each other. It's no more complicated then that. It's just like the wind. The wind doesn't exist, it is a relationship between things that exist. One molecule pushes on another, it's no more complicated then that.

The relationships are real, they can't be stacked into a pile, but they are real none-the-less. Gravity is so real that we can exactly predict its effect on things that are light-years away. That's just as real as a desk or an apple.

"This may just be a cognitive limitation on your part."

Flattery will get you everywhere.

"...you should have simply asked instead of trying to argue against me with only half a conception of what I was talking about"

Or you could have used the words as they are defined, there was that option too. Instead you choose to make up your own definition and then failed to state it explicitly. Words have specific meanings. Inventing a compound word that means something to you, and not defnining it in relation to words that mean something to everyone else, and then getting smug when you are misunderstood is not impressive.


"Relative reality is all of our perceptions and sensory experiences"

Oh, look, there it is. Now why wasn't that at the beginning of the first post? I don't know, must be my cognitive limitation rearing its ugly head.

"Our entire conception of reality is in our heads..."

Well where else would it be?

"We can't percieve the objective reality, only the relative one"

Yes, congratulations on using the words properly. Perception happens in the head, it's not a sense like sight is. Since relative reality is inside our heads, that is what we perceive. We sense objective reality and perceive relative reality.




All right, after going through all that I don't think we're really disagreeing on the difference between what happens outside our head and what happens inside. I think the real disagreement is that you seem to think that the difference between the two is a flaw that prevents us from UNDERSTANDING the real world, while I think that we are perfectly capable of understanding the real world.

[Lights]

All right, after going through all that I don't think we're really disagreeing on the difference between what happens outside our head and what happens inside. I think the real disagreement is that you seem to think that the difference between the two is a flaw that prevents us from UNDERSTANDING the real world, while I think that we are perfectly capable of understanding the real world.

There are a few things we are in disagreement on, but I agree that the real disagreement is on our ability to understand the objective reality. Your argument is based on Rand's belief that reason is the basis for understanding objective reality. However, I charge that reason is only an objective means of understanding relative reality, because it is entirely based upon knowledge and experiences that were derived from relative reality. And thus reason is far from perfect as is evident by all these rational people coming to different conclusions. Rand's argument has merit from her perception of human beings being selfish and lazy creatures. However, anyone who doesn't accept that parameter, will not reason out the same conclusion as her. Her arguments are entirely based upon her relative perception. A perception she can share with others because she outlined parameters of human nature and objective reality that others choose to accept. Outside those parameters, her arguments hold no water.

All she did was create an objective relative reality that makes sense to anyone who accepts her parameters of the nature of the universe and man.

[blueback]

Okay, are you saying that:

1) objective reality exists independent of anyone's interpretation of it

2) each person creates a relative reality in their own mind that bears some resemblance to objective reality, but can't possibly be the same because the information it was formed with is incomplete

3) each person then objectively analyzes the realtive reality in their own head

4) as long as two people formed roughly the same relative reality based on the same unique nuggets of incomplete information, and both objectively analyze their own relative realities, they will reach the same conclusions

5) then they will congratulate each other on being so good at interpreting objective reality, while at the same time other people who formed different relative realities based on different nuggets of incomplete information and objectively analyzed them will disagree

6) so what you end up with is a bunch of people arguing over their objective interpretations of their individual relative realities because they are incapable of actually understanding the real world

[Lights]

Okay, are you saying that:

1) objective reality exists independent of anyone's interpretation of it

2) each person creates a relative reality in their own mind that bears some resemblance to objective reality, but can't possibly be the same because the information it was formed with is incomplete

3) each person then objectively analyzes the realtive reality in their own head

4) as long as two people formed roughly the same relative reality based on the same unique nuggets of incomplete information, and both objectively analyze their own relative realities, they will reach the same conclusions

5) then they will congratulate each other on being so good at interpreting objective reality, while at the same time other people who formed different relative realities based on different nuggets of incomplete information and objectively analyzed them will disagree

6) so what you end up with is a bunch of people arguing over their objective interpretations of their individual relative realities because they are incapable of actually understanding the real world

It sounds like you more or less have the idea. Although I can't shake the feeling that you might be setting me up for a straw man attack. :laugh:

Simply put, the argument is...

1. Relatives (here: shorthand for relative. experiences/perceptions/faculties/etc) can be perceived.
2. Our relatives are based on the objective.
3. Yet, the objective cannot be perceived specifically by us, therefore it only has relative meaning to us.

Ultimately, what humans are striving for isn't an understanding of objective reality, but an objective understanding of their relative reality. This is a claim I feel comfortable making since humans can't even prove that objective reality exists beyond their own perceptions. "I think therefore I am" as Descartes put it.

One thing I would like to add is that I believe science is the constant testing and retesting of established beliefs in an attempt to learn something new about what we thought we knew. We do so by using standardized relative measurements to measure our perceptions that we gained of the physical universe from our sensory experiences. However, I believe it is still limited by our cognitive biases. Nonetheless, it is an excellent tool of gathering information from relative reality that gives us a glance of what might be true in objective reality. It's an interesting game of continuously gathering information to make ourselves more confident of every conclusion we make. Without it we wouldn't make much progress.

[blueback]

All right. I think I understand your POV now. . .you might have something there, I have to think about it for a bit.

[thod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[vkut79]

Dang you Thod! :) I was going to suggest the exact same thing as I was reading through all that discussion. You beat me by minutes! Also Kant's discussion metaphysics (Critique of Pure Reason) is useful for this topic as well.

Basically, Blueback you define "objective reality" as (in Plato's cave) the shadows on the wall that basically all people would experience similarly. There can be called objective in the sense that there is no substantial difference in interpretation from one person to the next. Lights, on the other hand, defines "objective reality" as the light that forms the shadows. Kant would call the shadows "intersubjective reality" and the light "objective reality". We can only experience this "objective reality" in the form of the shadows on the wall, which one might call "intersubjective reality" in that they are confined to exist within the parameters of our modes of perception and reason. The light, or "objective reality" is really sort of a useless concept because we have no access to it. For this reason it makes sense that the modern definition of "objective" has become equivalent to what used to be referred to as "subjective", because the distinction between universal reality and human reality does not serve much of a practical purpose.


Sometimes I feel like using language consistently and properly takes up 90% of the work of philosophy discussion. It can be so annoying.

[Lights]

Lights, on the other hand, defines "objective reality" as the light that forms the shadows.

Oh, is that why my name is Lights? :p

The light, or "objective reality" is really sort of a useless concept because we have no access to it. For this reason it makes sense that the modern definition of "objective" has become equivalent to what used to be referred to as "subjective", because the distinction between universal reality and human reality does not serve much of a practical purpose.

Funny, Ayn Rand seemed to believe she could see the light (Or was it that she argued it made no difference if we could or not). Heck, she outlined "objective" morals and ethics that humans should live by in accordance to her vision. Doesn't seem so useless from her perspective. :laugh:

It's a good thing I deleted my last post. I figured my line of reasoning was somehow original, but I guess numerous philosophers of both the east and west have come to the same conclusions. I suppose I shouldn't let the personal philosophy of one ardent anti-communist writer, who dismissed all other perspectives, get to me. She was just a master of defining shadows in a way that would intrigue individualistic, rational-minded people. :yuck:

[vkut79]

Many philosophers have professed to have seen the "light", or at least judged that it was possible. Plato actually believed that society should be governed by philosopher-kings who had gained access to this light, thereby having access to great wisdom and insight into "true" morality. But really seeing this "light" is impossible, for our very humanity confines us to seeing it in a certain way. The way in which our minds process information confines us to perceiving only a certain color of that reality. Now, for the most part, this perceived reality is the same for all people because we are all human - this is the intersubjective reality. On top of that there is "subjective" reality, which exists due to differences between different people. This subjective reality pertains to such things as the meaning of life, morality, etc. and these things we define to be subjective by their very nature. When somebody takes a subjective idea, like what it means to be human, and professes is to be the objective truth, then there is a problem with that because people don't all consider reality in the same way when it comes to these questions. Of course for 99.999% of us, killing a person for no reason is wrong, time flows at the same rate, gravity exists, etc. - these things we call objective because we share them in common with everyone else we know. But this shouldn't be mistaken in an ontological discussion for being the reality that is universal and absolute, as we cannot actually have access to it. It is really just a theoretical construct.





vkut79 added to this post, 10 minutes and 37 seconds later...

From Wikipedia:

Rand was neither a classical empiricist (like Hume or the logical positivists) nor a classical rationalist (like Plato, Descartes, or Frege). She disagreed with the empiricists mainly in that she considered perception to be simply sensation extended over time, limiting the scope of perception to automatic, pre-cognitive awareness. Thus, she categorized so-called "perceptual illusions" as errors in cognitive interpretation due to complexity of perceptual data. She held that objective identification of the values of attributes of existents is obtained by measurement, broadly defined as procedures whose perceptual component, the comparison of the attribute's value to a standard, is so simple that an error in the resulting identification is not possible given a focused mind. Therefore, according to Rand, knowledge obtained by measurement (the fact that an entity has the measured attribute, and the value of this attribute relative to the standard) is "contextually certain."

Error in measurement is not possible given a focused mind? Seriously? The FAE basically demonstrates that humans don't measure certain characteristics in the same way all the time, and not even by the same standard. Value judgments are basically impossible to make objectively. Yet we measure many things in our lives with value judgments. I might think that something is stupid and boring. Someone else might think its really exciting. Who is right? Both of us, because the thing in question means different things to both of us. We don't measure in the same way, and neither to we use the same standard. A lot of our reality is subjective. Relativism is inevitable.

[Lights]

Many philosophers have professed to have seen the "light", or at least judged that it was possible. Plato actually believed that society should be governed by philosopher-kings who had gained access to this light, thereby having access to great wisdom and insight into "true" morality. But really seeing this "light" is impossible, for our very humanity confines us to seeing it in a certain way. The way in which our minds process information confines us to perceiving only a certain color of that reality. Now, for the most part, this perceived reality is the same for all people because we are all human - this is the intersubjective reality. On top of that there is "subjective" reality, which exists due to differences between different people. This subjective reality pertains to such things as the meaning of life, morality, etc. and these things we define to be subjective by their very nature. When somebody takes a subjective idea, like what it means to be human, and professes is to be the objective truth, then there is a problem with that because people don't all consider reality in the same way when it comes to these questions. Of course for 99.999% of us, killing a person for no reason is wrong, time flows at the same rate, gravity exists, etc. - these things we call objective because we share them in common with everyone else we know. But this shouldn't be mistaken in an ontological discussion for being the reality that is universal and absolute, as we cannot actually have access to it. It is really just a theoretical construct.





vkut79 added to this post, 10 minutes and 37 seconds later...

From Wikipedia:

Rand was neither a classical empiricist (like Hume or the logical positivists) nor a classical rationalist (like Plato, Descartes, or Frege). She disagreed with the empiricists mainly in that she considered perception to be simply sensation extended over time, limiting the scope of perception to automatic, pre-cognitive awareness. Thus, she categorized so-called "perceptual illusions" as errors in cognitive interpretation due to complexity of perceptual data. She held that objective identification of the values of attributes of existents is obtained by measurement, broadly defined as procedures whose perceptual component, the comparison of the attribute's value to a standard, is so simple that an error in the resulting identification is not possible given a focused mind. Therefore, according to Rand, knowledge obtained by measurement (the fact that an entity has the measured attribute, and the value of this attribute relative to the standard) is "contextually certain."

Error in measurement is not possible given a focused mind? Seriously? The FAE basically demonstrates that humans don't measure certain characteristics in the same way all the time, and not even by the same standard. Value judgments are basically impossible to make objectively. Yet we measure many things in our lives with value judgments. I might think that something is stupid and boring. Someone else might think its really exciting. Who is right? Both of us, because the thing in question means different things to both of us. We don't measure in the same way, and neither to we use the same standard. A lot of our reality is subjective. Relativism is inevitable.

Absolutely brilliant. :thumbsup: FAE is undoubtedly a strong argument against objectivism.

What astonished me is Rand argues perceptual measurements of attributes from standards, but whose standards? And then she defines the standards, so it makes sense from her perspective. No wonder objectivists follow a circular line of reasoning. The standards were defined by Ayn Rand, so they are irrefutable as long as Ayn Rand is held as irrefutable. It's the same as any religion. The laws that God set down are infallible as long as God is held as infallible. Does that sound about right?

[vkut79]

Sure, any system of belief built on unquestionable doctrine is going to have set standards. If everybody agrees on the foundation of those standards, then it works fine for everyone. We all agree what colors are because we all have the same kinds of eyes to see those colors (unless we are blind, etc.). With religion, such as Christianity, if we agree on the foundation that the Holy Bible is correct, then all the rest follows and we can agree on set standards. If we don't agree that the Holy Bible is correct, then all of those standards fall. Religion is a great example of an aspect of reality that is very subjective/relative. If we have this certain kind of faith, then we can agree with others who have this certain kind of faith. If we don't, then we disagree. Is religion true or not true? You'll get different answers from a believer and non-believer, and guess what? They both are right relative to their view of reality - there is no objectivity there. Entirely subjective. So its not that all reality is subjective or all reality is objective; most of it is objective because people view things similarly, and some of it is subjective because people view things differently. All of this is natural. It does cause a ton of problems in the world though when people start proclaiming that their view is the ultimate truth.

"Objective" meaning the modern use of the term, not the traditional philosophical one.

[blueback]

Error in measurement is not possible given a focused mind? Seriously? The FAE basically demonstrates that humans don't measure certain characteristics in the same way all the time, and not even by the same standard.


The reason it is called the fundamental attribubtion ERROR is that rational inquiry exposed it as an error. It is a mistake that people are naturally disposed to make; but once they are aware of it they can easily correct it.



FAE is undoubtedly a strong argument against objectivism.


The FAE is a strong argument FOR objectivism. The FAE was predicted by rational inquiry, defined by a rational process, and is daily upheld by further rational analysis. The FAE wasn't a fad, once it was defined everyone who heard of it realized it was true. It is an illustration of truth which was made possible by rationality. Because it is a condensed nugget of truth describing the human condition and because it was mined by rationality, it upholds objectivism

You guys are arguing that humans can't know reality BECAUSE they gather information through human senses and consider it with human thought processes. You are wrong because our senses and thought processes are the only thing which allows us to understand reality.


What astonished me is Rand argues perceptual measurements of attributes from standards, but whose standards? And then she defines the standards, so it makes sense from her perspective. No wonder objectivists follow a circular line of reasoning.


You never bothered to state the "standards" that you were rejecting, but don't worry, luckily for you I am more rigoruous in my use of logic. Here are the three axioms that form the basis of objectivism. At least, these are my interpretations of them. If you bother to do any research and you find that I have mis-stated something feel free to correct me.

1) Existence exists. Grasping that requires that at the same time you grasp that there exists a conciousness to perceive existence (that's you). Existence and conciousness are facts that are implicit in every perception.

2) Knowledge presupposes something to know (reality) and someone to know it (you). Every human expression, including denial of these axioms, requires their use.

3) A thing is what it is. A thing that exists cannot be another thing, nor can it act contrary to its nature.

I don't see any circular logic in those standards. They are mutually supporting, but that is because they must all be present at the same time. Circular logic would be something along the lines of "The Bible says the Bible is truth." These axioms are more like saying that an arch requires two points of rest and a keystone, not circular, just necessary.

You seem to be arguing that humans can't know anything about reality. You seem to be supporting this argument with the idea that humans have a limited ability to gather information about reality and are naturally inclined to spend as little time and effort compiling that information as possible. The natural result of human nature is for humans to form a picture of reality which is barely good enough to enable their survival long enough to reproduce. However, an idea, once formed, can be copied perfectly an infinite number of times. It never runs out and each copy forms the foundation for a potential new idea. The natural result of that process is that over time people can get a better picture of reality with the same amount of effort.

Knowledge is compunding. Just like compound interest, the interest is added to the principle and that is compounded. That is why people can be so stupid and yet still able to land on the moon and come back. There is very little difference between various people, but there is a great deal of difference between various ideas. Someone who posesses rudimentary ideas is at the bottom of the exponential curve, they have a lot of work to do to reach the elbow. Someone who posesses knowledge on the "upwardly mobile" side of the elbow is capable of making incredible leaps with only the same percent addition to the total. "one small leap for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

It is rationality, the forming of concepts based on objective knowledge, that is the compounding factor. Just because someone willfully or accidentally undermines their rational thought process doesn't mean rationality isn't the key to understanding the universe. The FAE is, at best, an accidental rebellion against rationality. The FAE is the application of a thought process that works in one situation to a situation in which it doesn't matter if it works or not.

People evaluate themselves, and when they do they have a full understanding of the environmental factors influencing themselves. Therefore, they tend to take their understanding for granted; how could they not understand the environmental factors they are aware of? When they try to evaluate someone else, they are unaware of all the environmental factors influencing the other person. However, their conclusion as to why the other person did something is unimportant. Very seldom will their prediction ever be tested, and they will receive feedback even less often. If someone is unaware of the FAE, then they are probably unaware of the many other errors which influence them to remember only confirming evidence, to protect their own ego, etc.

The FAE does nothing to undermine the axioms of objectivism.

[Lights]

You guys are arguing that humans can't know reality BECAUSE they gather information through human senses and consider it with human thought processes. You are wrong because our senses and thought processes are the only thing which allows us to understand reality.

We understand human (relative) reality. We don't understand objective reality. You can't make claims about objective reality, simply about what you know about human (relative) reality.

1) Existence exists. Grasping that requires that at the same time you grasp that there exists a conciousness to perceive existence (that's you). Existence and conciousness are facts that are implicit in every perception.

Did I not say earlier, "Ultimately, what humans are striving for isn't an understanding of objective reality, but an objective understanding of their relative reality. This is a claim I feel comfortable making since humans can't even prove that objective reality exists beyond their own perceptions. "I think therefore I am" as Descartes put it."?

2) Knowledge presupposes something to know (reality) and someone to know it (you). Every human expression, including denial of these axioms, requires their use.

Yes, knowledge exists in human (relative) reality.

3) A thing is what it is. A thing that exists cannot be another thing, nor can it act contrary to its nature.

That statement is an attempt to deny the existence of dualities. However, it does not provide any evidence to the contrary. It is an assumption.

I don't see any circular logic in those standards. They are mutually supporting, but that is because they must all be present at the same time. Circular logic would be something along the lines of "The Bible says the Bible is truth." These axioms are more like saying that an arch requires two points of rest and a keystone, not circular, just necessary.

The circular logic is that you have accepted the standards as infallible, therefore any attempt to contradict the standards will be met with denial and a restatement of the standards.

You seem to be arguing that humans can't know anything about reality.

The claim we have made is we don't know what we know about reality.

You seem to be supporting this argument with the idea that humans have a limited ability to gather information about reality

Correct.

...and are naturally inclined to spend as little time and effort compiling that information as possible.

No one said anything like that. Now you are drifting to straw man tactics. To the contrary I stated, "One thing I would like to add is that I believe science is the constant testing and retesting of established beliefs in an attempt to learn something new about what we thought we knew. We do so by using standardized relative measurements to measure our perceptions that we gained of the physical universe from our sensory experiences. However, I believe it is still limited by our cognitive biases. Nonetheless, it is an excellent tool of gathering information from relative reality that gives us a glance of what might be true in objective reality. It's an interesting game of continuously gathering information to make ourselves more confident of every conclusion we make. Without it we wouldn't make much progress."

The natural result of human nature is for humans to form a picture of reality which is barely good enough to enable their survival long enough to reproduce.

Is that your value judgement or a claim that you are arguing that we have made?

However, an idea, once formed, can be copied perfectly an infinite number of times. It never runs out and each copy forms the foundation for a potential new idea. The natural result of that process is that over time people can get a better picture of reality with the same amount of effort.

You seem to be drifting here.

Knowledge is compunding. Just like compound interest, the interest is added to the principle and that is compounded. That is why people can be so stupid and yet still able to land on the moon and come back. There is very little difference between various people, but there is a great deal of difference between various ideas. Someone who posesses rudimentary ideas is at the bottom of the exponential curve, they have a lot of work to do to reach the elbow. Someone who posesses knowledge on the "upwardly mobile" side of the elbow is capable of making incredible leaps with only the same percent addition to the total. "one small leap for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

I agree. But knowledge is still a part of human (relative) reality. It doesn't exist outside of us.

It is rationality, the forming of concepts based on objective knowledge, that is the compounding factor. Just because someone willfully or accidentally undermines their rational thought process doesn't mean rationality isn't the key to understanding the universe. The FAE is, at best, an accidental rebellion against rationality. The FAE is the application of a thought process that works in one situation to a situation in which it doesn't matter if it works or not.

Your arguments are based on the assumption that knowledge exists as an objective absolute.

People evaluate themselves, and when they do they have a full understanding of the environmental factors influencing themselves.

This is an assumption.

Therefore, they tend to take their understanding for granted; how could they not understand the environmental factors they are aware of? When they try to evaluate someone else, they are unaware of all the environmental factors influencing the other person. However, their conclusion as to why the other person did something is unimportant. Very seldom will their prediction ever be tested, and they will receive feedback even less often. If someone is unaware of the FAE, then they are probably unaware of the many other errors which influence them to remember only confirming evidence, to protect their own ego, etc.

Protecting the ego. You nailed it. That is all objectivism is. It's a philosophical manifestation of the ego trying to protect itself. It is nothing more, and it is nothing less.

The FAE does nothing to undermine the axioms of objectivism.

True, from your perspective, it is difficult to imagine. However, from our perspective, it is pretty clear.

All I hear from you now blueback is your screams about shadows. "I interpret the shadows this way." Way to go, you have formulated an objective understanding of your relative reality. Those are the parameters you have chosen to accept, to measure all your values and ideas against. It seems to me to be a rather meaningless gesture, but if it is important to you, then I congratulate you.

[vkut79]

"1) Existence exists. Grasping that requires that at the same time you grasp that there exists a conciousness to perceive existence (that's you). Existence and conciousness are facts that are implicit in every perception.

2) Knowledge presupposes something to know (reality) and someone to know it (you). Every human expression, including denial of these axioms, requires their use.

3) A thing is what it is. A thing that exists cannot be another thing, nor can it act contrary to its nature."

Some things depend on the observer. For example, abstract concepts that are invented by us, such as morality. So while one may claim that they know "morality", that does not mean that "morality" is a thing in itself that exists outside of our thought. This sort of idea also seems to contradict axion number three. My idea of morality may be so and so. Someone else's idea of morality can be something else. So it doesn't really make sense to me to say that morality, as a thing, is what it is. It is subjective, relative. It is an aspect of reality that isn't just sitting there, to be found with pure reason like a mathematical formula. Only I can dictate what it really means, and it can really be whatever I think it should be.





vkut79 added to this post, 16 minutes and 4 seconds later...

"You seem to be arguing that humans can't know anything about reality. You seem to be supporting this argument with the idea that humans have a limited ability to gather information about reality and are naturally inclined to spend as little time and effort compiling that information as possible. The natural result of human nature is for humans to form a picture of reality which is barely good enough to enable their survival long enough to reproduce. However, an idea, once formed, can be copied perfectly an infinite number of times. It never runs out and each copy forms the foundation for a potential new idea. The natural result of that process is that over time people can get a better picture of reality with the same amount of effort."

We CAN know about reality, but it is a relative reality that depends on our perception and cognition. Suppose there exists an ultimate, "objective" (in the metaphysical sense, I will refer to it as ultimate) reality X. We perceive it with perception and cognition Y. The product of X and Y, XY, equals Z, our relative reality. Someone else might have a very slightly different mechanism of perception and cognition Y, and so their relative reality Z would be different. Perhaps the two mechanisms are different because of genetics, culture, environment. The result is that their relative realities are slightly different. There is nothing really to speak of in regards the ultimate reality, we have no way of accessing it.

Yes over time a person can get a better picture of their RELATIVE reality, sure. That does not mean its closer to the ultimate reality. For all we know, the ultimate reality is incomrehensible. Two people may gain a great amount of knowledge about their relative realities, but in the end their relative realities won't necessarily be more similar to one another as a result of becoming closer to a higher "ultimate reality". The two people may still have different ways of perceiving the ultimate reality, and for that reason they may still have different relative realities.

[blueback]

We understand human (relative) reality. We don't understand objective reality. You can't make claims about objective reality, simply about what you know about human (relative) reality.


You totally missed the man-on-the-moon story, didn’t you? We exist, the universe exists, we are aware of the universe. You keep saying that we DON’T understand anything outside our own mind, you’re wrong. If we didn’t understand reality, we wouldn’t have been able to go on a round-trip to the moon. Action is the test of understanding. When you understand reality your predictions are justified, when you don’t understand reality your predictions are proven false. There are plenty of people who don’t understand reality, they’re called crazy or stupid.

When a rocket scientist claims that his rocket will work, and then tests it successfully, he has proven that he understands reality. The action he takes is the test of his understanding. It’s like calling your shot in pool. If you KNOW where the ball is going to go then you understand reality. If you predict badly then you don’t understand reality. Therefore, we can and do make claims about “objective reality.”


1) Existence exists. Grasping that requires that at the same time you grasp that there exists a conciousness to perceive existence (that's you). Existence and conciousness are facts that are implicit in every perception.

Did I not say earlier, "Ultimately, what humans are striving for isn't an understanding of objective reality, but an objective understanding of their relative reality. This is a claim I feel comfortable making since humans can't even prove that objective reality exists beyond their own perceptions. "I think therefore I am" as Descartes put it."?


So, in your mind, in your “relative reality” that quote from yourself somehow proves #1 wrong? The only way it could, is if humans are incapable of determining the difference between their fantasies and reality. Since the simple test of whether or not a person can tell the difference between the two is to make a prediction and act on it, and people do that successfully every day, you are wrong and #1 stands. Try to answer that, don’t requote yourself.


3) A thing is what it is. A thing that exists cannot be another thing, nor can it act contrary to its nature.

That statement is an attempt to deny the existence of dualities. However, it does not provide any evidence to the contrary. It is an assumption.


Well, according to the Wikipedia entry on dualism, you either don’t know what you’re talking about or you need to provide a reference to a specific definition of “dualities.” According to the American heritage dictionary, your comment has nothing to do with #3. I’ll let you do the research to back up your own point.


The circular logic is that you have accepted the standards as infallible, therefore any attempt to contradict the standards will be met with denial and a restatement of the standards.


That could be circular, except that the exact same thing would happen if I actually was right. The only way to tell the difference is to test the standards. Feel free to test them any time now. You might want to start by actually rebutting them.


You seem to be arguing that humans can't know anything about reality.

The claim we have made is we don't know what we know about reality.


Which is exactly the same thing. You’re saying that we MIGHT know something, but there’s no way to be sure. Again, you are wrong. Actions are the test, when we predict correctly we are proven to know something about reality.


Your arguments are based on the assumption that knowledge exists as an objective absolute.


Yeah, because it does. Algebra is knowledge of how values interact and it is exactly the same no matter where you are, who you are, or what your personal prejudices are. It either works or it doesn’t. Anyone could invent algebra and it would be exactly the same algebra as what anyone else would have invented. They might not talk about it in the same way, but it would work the same way and you could convert between the two.

The problem is that people are easily confused. The rules have to be understood exactly and obeyed exactly, any error and the prediction is wrong. However, when there is no error the prediction is right, that means that knowledge is objective.


Therefore, they tend to take their understanding for granted; how could they not understand the environmental factors they are aware of? When they try to evaluate someone else, they are unaware of all the environmental factors influencing the other person. However, their conclusion as to why the other person did something is unimportant. Very seldom will their prediction ever be tested, and they will receive feedback even less often. If someone is unaware of the FAE, then they are probably unaware of the many other errors which influence them to remember only confirming evidence, to protect their own ego, etc.

Protecting the ego. You nailed it. That is all objectivism is. It's a philosophical manifestation of the ego trying to protect itself. It is nothing more, and it is nothing less.


Wow, you have a reading comprehension problem, don’t you? Actually, that would explain a lot.

In the example, the people “protecting their own ego” are the people who aren’t following the rules of objectivism. They are making decisions that are not in their rational self-interest. If they were “manifesting” objectivism properly they would have overcome those errors.


All I hear from you now blueback is your screams about shadows. "I interpret the shadows this way." Way to go, you have formulated an objective understanding of your relative reality. Those are the parameters you have chosen to accept, to measure all your values and ideas against. It seems to me to be a rather meaningless gesture, but if it is important to you, then I congratulate you.


I can understand why you’d want to cling to your interpretation of reality. You see the things I’m saying as equally wrong as I see the things you’re saying. The difference between the two of us is that I make sure I understand your ideas before I try to rebut them. If you scroll up you’ll find a lot of me trying to make sure I had fully grasped reality as you see it. You, on the other hand, aren’t bothering at all to attempt to understand my arguments. There is nothing consistent in your replies; some are nonsense, some are too short to provide any context, some are just quotes of what you’ve said before, some are red herrings.

Don’t worry, though. I’ll keep trying to get through to you. If the conversation ends it will be because one of us is convinced or you got tired of thinking.



Some things depend on the observer. For example, abstract concepts that are invented by us, such as morality. So while one may claim that they know "morality", that does not mean that "morality" is a thing in itself that exists outside of our thought. This sort of idea also seems to contradict axion number three. My idea of morality may be so and so. Someone else's idea of morality can be something else. So it doesn't really make sense to me to say that morality, as a thing, is what it is. It is subjective, relative. It is an aspect of reality that isn't just sitting there, to be found with pure reason like a mathematical formula. Only I can dictate what it really means, and it can really be whatever I think it should be.


First) “things” don’t depend on the observer. A thing is what it is, no matter what the observer wants it to be.

Second) all “abstract concepts” are invented by us. All “concepts” are invented by us. Concepts are what the rational mind uses to predict reality. They are a definition of a thing with the measurements excluded. For example, you can see a hundred different oak trees and still recognize them all as oak trees.

Third) you can’t say that morality isn’t real unless you prove it isn’t real. Everyone on the planet agrees that unjustified killing is wrong. Their definitions for “justified” vary, but so do the dimensions of oak trees. Just like someone can look at a tree and decide whether or not it is an oak tree based on their past experience with oak trees, they can look at a death and decide whether or not it is justified based on their past experience with death. So, just because two people have an incomplete understanding of oak trees, or death, doesn’t mean a complete understanding isn’t possible.

Your reasoning is from the dark ages. Back then they didn’t have enough information about the solar system, so everyone’s guess was as good as everyone else’s. The more powerful people pressed their guess on everyone else, but the mind can’t be forced to think anything. All it took was one man reasoning on his own to describe the true state of reality. Once he did, all the false guesses were soon proven wrong. So, just because we don’t all agree on the truth of morality yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t waiting to be figured out.


Yes over time a person can get a better picture of their RELATIVE reality, sure. That does not mean its closer to the ultimate reality. For all we know, the ultimate reality is incomrehensible. Two people may gain a great amount of knowledge about their relative realities, but in the end their relative realities won't necessarily be more similar to one another as a result of becoming closer to a higher "ultimate reality". The two people may still have different ways of perceiving the ultimate reality, and for that reason they may still have different relative realities


Is this a joke? Are you pulling my leg? You’re saying that these two people can’t find out whether or not their “relative realities” tell them anything about reality. . .but all they have to do is turn the stove on and think about whether or not they want to put their hand on the burner. If their “relative reality” correctly informs them that the burner (gee, wonder why it’s called that) will burn them then they do in fact understand “ultimate reality.” If their “relative reality” incorrectly informs them that the burner will give them a light tickle, and they test that prediction, then they will quickly form a new “relative reality” that is more like “ultimate reality.”

[Lights]

You totally missed the man-on-the-moon story, didn’t you? We exist, the universe exists, we are aware of the universe. You keep saying that we DON’T understand anything outside our own mind, you’re wrong. If we didn’t understand reality, we wouldn’t have been able to go on a round-trip to the moon.

Actually we were able to do that because of this thing called science, or as I said before but you selectively left out of your counterarguments, "One thing I would like to add is that I believe science is the constant testing and retesting of established beliefs in an attempt to learn something new about what we thought we knew. We do so by using standardized relative measurements to measure our perceptions that we gained of the physical universe from our sensory experiences. However, I believe it is still limited by our cognitive biases. Nonetheless, it is an excellent tool of gathering information from relative reality that gives us a glance of what might be true in objective reality. It's an interesting game of continuously gathering information to make ourselves more confident of every conclusion we make. Without it we wouldn't make much progress."

Action is the test of understanding. When you understand reality your predictions are justified, when you don’t understand reality your predictions are proven false. There are plenty of people who don’t understand reality, they’re called crazy or stupid.

True, experimenting is the key to progress and we get their by testing our relative reality. But its all a matter of confidence, nothing is ultimately true or false about objective reality. Remember that science is based on facts which are repeated observable phenomenon. Notice the reference to perception there. You would be a god awful scientist if you stopped testing and accepted something as an indisputable truth.

Heck, I don't see many objectivists out testing their beliefs.

When a rocket scientist claims that his rocket will work, and then tests it successfully, he has proven that he understands reality. The action he takes is the test of his understanding. It’s like calling your shot in pool. If you KNOW where the ball is going to go then you understand reality. If you predict badly then you don’t understand reality. Therefore, we can and do make claims about “objective reality.”

Of course he had to grasp some nugget of objectivity there. Of course, its limited to his perception of it.

1) Existence exists. Grasping that requires that at the same time you grasp that there exists a conciousness to perceive existence (that's you). Existence and conciousness are facts that are implicit in every perception.

Yay! You are repeating yourself exactly as I predicted you would. Simply because you can't look outside the parameters you have defined for yourself. It seems like a good sturdy box you have confined yourself to.

So, in your mind, in your “relative reality” that quote from yourself somehow proves #1 wrong? The only way it could, is if humans are incapable of determining the difference between their fantasies and reality. Since the simple test of whether or not a person can tell the difference between the two is to make a prediction and act on it, and people do that successfully every day, you are wrong and #1 stands. Try to answer that, don’t requote yourself.

Straw man. My argument has nothing with fantasies. Relative reality is defined as all the perceptions and sensory experiences of each individual. I've stated that clearly before. If you are going to try to rebut me then please use reason instead of these fallacy tactics that just make you look stupid and wastes everyone's time.

3) A thing is what it is. A thing that exists cannot be another thing, nor can it act contrary to its nature.

Repeating yourself again as I knew you would.

Well, according to the Wikipedia entry on dualism, you either don’t know what you’re talking about or you need to provide a reference to a specific definition of “dualities.” According to the American heritage dictionary, your comment has nothing to do with #3. I’ll let you do the research to back up your own point.

A duality is the union of two opposites. That was the relative claim that Rand was trying to dismiss with that statement.

That could be circular, except that the exact same thing would happen if I actually was right. The only way to tell the difference is to test the standards. Feel free to test them any time now. You might want to start by actually rebutting them.

No, if you were so clearly right then you could prove it outside those statements. As they stand, they are assumptions with no evidence to back them up except for your faith.

Which is exactly the same thing. You’re saying that we MIGHT know something, but there’s no way to be sure. Again, you are wrong. Actions are the test, when we predict correctly we are proven to know something about reality.

You really know nothing about science do you? Or about the scientific method? Everything in science is either a fact "repeatedly observable phenomenon", a hypothesis "an educated guess, a theory "a hypothesis that is backed up by experimentation", or a law "a theory that has strong evidence to support it". All of these are considered assumptions that could be disproved if any new evidence comes up. Almost every scientist knows that scientific laws cannot be "proven," or "justified," but only have mounting evidence in its favor.


Yeah, because it does. Algebra is knowledge of how values interact and it is exactly the same no matter where you are, who you are, or what your personal prejudices are. It either works or it doesn’t. Anyone could invent algebra and it would be exactly the same algebra as what anyone else would have invented. They might not talk about it in the same way, but it would work the same way and you could convert between the two.

Consider a statement of the form:
"It is true that my belief, A, is objectively true."

Has anyone ever proved such a statement true?

The problem is that people are easily confused. The rules have to be understood exactly and obeyed exactly, any error and the prediction is wrong. However, when there is no error the prediction is right, that means that knowledge is objective.

Of course they have to be understood and followed exactly. They are the parameters of an objective relative reality. It wouldn't work otherwise.

I can understand why you’d want to cling to your interpretation of reality. You see the things I’m saying as equally wrong as I see the things you’re saying.

To the contrary, I don't see anything you are saying as wrong. I see the parameters of your reality and I agree with the conclusions you have come to within your reality. I just don't accept the same parameters.

The difference between the two of us is that I make sure I understand your ideas before I try to rebut them. If you scroll up you’ll find a lot of me trying to make sure I had fully grasped reality as you see it. You, on the other hand, aren’t bothering at all to attempt to understand my arguments. There is nothing consistent in your replies; some are nonsense, some are too short to provide any context, some are just quotes of what you’ve said before, some are red herrings.

Now you are just insulting me? My god, how weak an argument do you have to have to spend an entire paragraph attacking a person instead of their arguments.

Don’t worry, though. I’ll keep trying to get through to you. If the conversation ends it will be because one of us is convinced or you got tired of thinking.


Oh please do. :laugh: I have been waiting for this.

First) “things” don’t depend on the observer. A thing is what it is, no matter what the observer wants it to be.

Prove it. Please show us how "morality" is a thing. I would especially love to see that one.

Second) all “abstract concepts” are invented by us. All “concepts” are invented by us. Concepts are what the rational mind uses to predict reality. They are a definition of a thing with the measurements excluded. For example, you can see a hundred different oak trees and still recognize them all as oak trees.

True.

Third) you can’t say that morality isn’t real unless you prove it isn’t real. Everyone on the planet agrees that unjustified killing is wrong. Their definitions for “justified” vary, but so do the dimensions of oak trees. Just like someone can look at a tree and decide whether or not it is an oak tree based on their past experience with oak trees, they can look at a death and decide whether or not it is justified based on their past experience with death. So, just because two people have an incomplete understanding of oak trees, or death, doesn’t mean a complete understanding isn’t possible.

You can't say morality is real unless you prove it is.

Your reasoning is from the dark ages.

Another personal attack? :laugh:

Back then they didn’t have enough information about the solar system, so everyone’s guess was as good as everyone else’s. The more powerful people pressed their guess on everyone else, but the mind can’t be forced to think anything. All it took was one man reasoning on his own to describe the true state of reality. Once he did, all the false guesses were soon proven wrong. So, just because we don’t all agree on the truth of morality yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t waiting to be figured out.

That doesn't disprove the point. To the contrary, one man rejected everyone else's relative reality and came to his own based on evidence he found in his relative reality. All there relative realities were based on the same objective reality, he was just a better scientist.

[vkut79]

Alright I need to explain myself more clearly. I think the reason you are disagreeing with me is that you think when I mean that people have different relative realities I am saying that they have significantly different relative realities. In fact, they are virtually indistinguishable. The "relative" realities of people are 99.99% the same from person to person. Fire is hot, the sun is yellow, food tastes good. This is common sense. You think I'm pulling your leg because I made it sound like this difference is significant. Its not significant, because people perceive reality virtually identically. This is why we can even speak of an objective reality. The only reason why I'm talking about this difference is simply from a theoretical standpoint, that things aren't what they actually seem to us. Although we all see the sun, it does not mean that this sun actually is there when there is no human to see it.

If we were to someday encounter an extra-terrestrial, they might have perception and cognition functions significantly different from our own. They might have evolved in a completely different kind of environment somewhere across the galaxy, even though all the physical laws would have been the same. They may not use mathematics, but some other kind of system of measurement that we do not understand. As a result, the world of their experience would be in terms of this other mode of cognition. It may seem impossible to us that this could possibly be the case, or that there is certainly some scientific explanation for their measurement that we can understand. But what if something like dark matter exists (something that humans are incapable of sensing), and these aliens rely on dark matter to understand the universe. Maybe they are somehow in tune with it. There relative reality would be completely different from our own, because we have no access to this dark matter. Dark matter may not be a good example, because you might counter by saying that we CAN understand dark matter through reason given enough time and effort to do so, but I am saying hypothetically that we simply cannot interact with this matter in any way. This is an extreme example; the point is to demonstrate that relative realities are possible due to different forms of perception and cognition.

Humans experience an "objective" reality, or the illusion of one, because we have nothing to tell us that it is otherwise. Since it is impossible for us to experience any other reality than what we experience, this is the only reality we claim exists. As I said, humans basically experience the same reality, but slight differences are hypothetically possible.

Differences in things like morality arise because ideas of morality are not entirely based on reason. They are also based on emotions and feelings. For this reason, morality can vary greatly from person to person. Although this is not obtained by reason, it is still a major part of a person's relative reality. There is no such thing as one perfect morality that all striving towards. There are common links, but there is such great variation among people in terms of character and personality (which affect abstract, feeling-based concepts such as morality) that there will be variation in the understand of this idea. Also its important to add that reason itself is not entirely free of emotion (nothing really is), so this variation in emotion influence from person to person can cause reason to vary rather than going in a straight path for every single person.

I could probably write more but I'll just leave it there for now, I want to know if you get what I mean with the alien example, and whether or not you buy it.

[blueback]

The "relative" realities of people are 99.99% the same from person to person.

I wasn’t focusing on that part. I was focused on the part where no one was able to compare their “relative reality” (no matter how off-the-wall) to “objective reality.”

… things aren't what they actually seem to us. Although we all see the sun, it does not mean that this sun actually is there when there is no human to see it.

Well, the sun was there long before there was a human to see it, otherwise the solar system would never have formed. In a quantum causality sense the light from the sun doesn’t create a picture of the sun until it is observed, but the sun is still there.

If we were to someday encounter an extra-terrestrial, they might have perception and cognition functions significantly different from our own.

Sure, why not, they might even invite the captain of our starship to partake in their strange rituals.

They might have evolved in a completely different kind of environment somewhere across the galaxy, even though all the physical laws would have been the same. They may not use mathematics, but some other kind of system of measurement that we do not understand.

If they are in the same universe we are, then we will be able to understand each other’s math. Actually, even if they’re in a different universe we’ll be able to understand each other’s math. Math is math, not magic. It is pure relationships, as long as the law of cause and effect still applies, math doesn’t change.

As a result, the world of their experience would be in terms of this other mode of cognition.

Sure, if they sense differently and think differently then their “world of experience” will be different. That doesn’t change the fact that they won’t jump at the chance to put their hand on the stove either.

It may seem impossible to us that this could possibly be the case, or that there is certainly some scientific explanation for their measurement that we can understand. But what if something like dark matter exists (something that humans are incapable of sensing), and these aliens rely on dark matter to understand the universe. Maybe they are somehow in tune with it. There relative reality would be completely different from our own, because we have no access to this dark matter.

The only reason you can bring up dark matter in your example is because we are aware of it. Are you using it as an example of “something” that we are completely unaware of, but that hypothetical aliens are very familiar with?

… relative realities are possible due to different forms of perception and cognition.

But you just said that everyone’s “relative reality” is the same. Now you’re saying that the aliens “relative realities” will be different? What if someone breeds with the aliens, then will the half-breeds have “relative realities” that are half way between human “relative reality” and alien “relative reality?”

Humans experience an "objective" reality, or the illusion of one, because we have nothing to tell us that it is otherwise. Since it is impossible for us to experience any other reality than what we experience, this is the only reality we claim exists.

Well. . .yeah, what other sensible option is there? I have absolutely no evidence that unicorns exist, so I’m not going to claim they do. I have a lot of evidence that reality exists so I’m confident in saying that reality exists. Why is that even worth mentioning? I thought we were both assuming the person we were talking to was sane.

Differences in things like morality arise because ideas of morality are not entirely based on reason.

True, at least in the most flexible definition of morality. Objectivism states that morality is based on reason. Of course, that’s not “reason” as most people tend to interpret it but rather reason as defined in objectivism.
Ultimately, morality is relative to the specific situation. That’s not based on objectivism, that’s just based on observation of people. Even people who claim to stand by their moral absolutes are capable of violating them when they feel justified.

There is no such thing as one perfect morality that all striving towards.

There could be, why do you think people still talk about it? Why do you think we’re talking about it now? Because everyone wants to KNOW the difference between right and wrong. We haven’t gotten there yet, but we keep trying. Are you saying that we are all wasting our time? Should we stop trying to figure out morality?

Also its important to add that reason itself is not entirely free of emotion (nothing really is), so this variation in emotion influence from person to person can cause reason to vary rather than going in a straight path for every single person.

Actually, reason is free of emotion, that’s why there are different words for them. No person is free of emotions, even a person who is guided by reason; maybe that’s what you were trying to say.
At the core of everything everyone does is an emotion. Emotions are the motivation behind every single action everyone takes. Even the word “emotion” originally mean to stir up or to move. Emotions are the reasons we do things. Reason is what allows us to fulfill our emotions, but reason alone is just a tool, not a motivation.


I could probably write more but I'll just leave it there for now, I want to know if you get what I mean with the alien example, and whether or not you buy it.

I think I get it, although I think that it’s so hypothetical it’s basically just moot. If we were having this discussion 500 years ago you probably would have said “leprechauns” or “faeries” instead of aliens. It sounds like it’s just a blank canvas you can project fantasies onto. But I'm open to any explanation you wan to add.



Actually we were able to [go to the moon] because of this thing called science… it is an excellent tool of gathering information from relative reality that gives us a glance of what might be true in objective reality

Close, you’re so close. Of course, you’re probably not even reading this stuff any more. It looks like you just have that block of text loaded up on your clipboard so that you can paste it again.
What you are calling “science” I am calling “reason.” They are the same thing, only I’ve been talking about it happening inside one person’s head and you are talking about it happening through collaboration between many people. Ultimately, science starts inside the mind of an individual, then it expands to the minds of multiple individuals. Therefore, I think it is better to just talk about the individual.
Now, about this “glance of what might be true.” Are you maybe, possibly, not-for-sure saying that reason (or science if you prefer) is capable of informing humans about “objective reality?” It sounds like you are.

True, experimenting is the key to progress and we get their by testing our relative reality. But its all a matter of confidence, nothing is ultimately true or false about objective reality.

Oh, I thought we were making progress there for a second!
Did you really just say that “nothing is ultimately true or false about objective reality?” I mean, wow, this is a break-through of sorts.
No wonder you are incapable of entertaining the principles of objectivism, you’re being dogmatic. You BELIEVE that reality is uncertain, that it doesn’t exist, that it can’t be tested. You are incapable of accepting the first axiom because you reject it as false.

Of course [the successful rocket scientist] had to grasp some nugget of objectivity there. Of course, its limited to his perception of it.

Of course you would say that. Since you believe that reality doesn’t exist, then anything the rocket scientist is capable of predicting is just luck. Of course you would say that it doesn’t prove anything, because your dogmatic faith prevents you from evaluating it rationally.

Yay! You are repeating yourself exactly as I predicted you would. Simply because you can't look outside the parameters you have defined for yourself. It seems like a good sturdy box you have confined yourself to.

So. . . .repeating yourself is bad? This coming from the person who has repeated the same block of text several times. I included that axiom as context for the discussion. I wanted to save everyone the effort of scrolling up and trying to find it again. However, since it’s distracting to you, I switched to including context within your actual quotes. Hopefully you can avoid crowing over this victory.
Oh, and the next time you’re flying, don’t let yourself be confined in that little box. Just because the walls of the airplane work doesn’t mean you should subject yourself to them. After all, reality doesn’t exist. If your “relative reality” informs you that it’s more fun being on the outside of the plane it’s not like there’s any kind of “objective reality” that will ever correct your mistake.

Straw man. My argument has nothing with fantasies. Relative reality is defined as all the perceptions and sensory experiences of each individual. I've stated that clearly before. If you are going to try to rebut me then please use reason instead of these fallacy tactics that just make you look stupid and wastes everyone's time

Yes, I get that you understand what a straw man argument is! Stop trying to impress me with it. Instead, focus on providing some context to your answers so that I don’t have to scroll up for 10 minutes trying to reference your exact words.
You said “humans can't even prove that objective reality exists beyond their own perceptions” which is what I was referring to with the “fantasies” comment. If someone thinks that reality is what it isn’t, that is called a fantasy. If we wanted to be more polite, I suppose we could call it a mistake, but I think that fantasy is more accurate. You are so wrong it’s incredible you’ve survived this long.
Every time you look both ways before crossing the street you are acting on the knowledge that an objective car will objectively squish you if you objectively walk out in front of it. Of course humans can prove objective reality exists! You know that it exists every time you type on the keyboard in front of you and the proper letters appear on the screen. It’s not all in your head.

Repeating yourself again as I knew you would… A duality is the union of two opposites. That was the relative claim that Rand was trying to dismiss with that statement

Oh, look, you bash on me for conveniently including axiom #3 and then you refer to it in your answer. You are a duality, on the one hand you make use of your knowledge of objective reality and on the other hand you deny that objective reality exists.
See, that would have been a perfect opportunity for you to do some research, maybe cite some references to prove that someone, anyone else in the world agreed with you. Even just posting a definition for duality that wasn’t popped out of your own “relative reality.” I can’t find your definition in a dictionary. . .it sounds kind of mystical.
Again, I will try to explain that the concept of duality doesn’t have anything to do with axiom #3. All #3 states is that A is A, B is B and A is not B. Sure, a coin has two sides, but it’s still a coin, it’s not a feather. Duality is just a convenient way to group concepts that are inverses of each other. White is the opposite of black, good is the opposite of evil, right is the opposite of left, etc. Duality has nothing to do with axiom #3.

No, if you were so clearly right then you could prove it outside those statements. As they stand, they are assumptions with no evidence to back them up except for your faith

Actually, you are proving those statements for me right now. Simply by continuing this conversation you are providing all the proof they need. Your consciousness has grasped the existence of the computer in front of you (#1). You know that the computer will transmit your message to me (#2). You are confident that the computer won’t suddenly start trying to eat you (#3).
There, I’m quite pleased with that explanation, but I don’t really expect you to understand it. I expect you to just tell me that I’m accepting the axioms on blind faith again.

You really know nothing about science do you?

Oops, you caught me! Thank God I’ve got you here to remind me that reality doesn’t exist and I don’t actually know what I have deluded myself into believing I know. It’s those shadows, they’re just so convincing. I suppose it doesn’t matter that science is proof that reality exists independent of our understanding of it. I mean, after all, you say that it doesn’t exist, why can’t that be good enough for me?

Consider a statement of the form:"It is true that my belief, A, is objectively true." Has anyone ever proved such a statement true?

I don’t think this has anything to do with algebra. . .but I’ll humor you.
No, no one ever has because you don’t know how to use the English language properly. For something to be a belief is must not be proven. Proof negates belief. Will you please look at a dictionary just once? Pretty please?

They are the parameters of an objective relative reality

What does that even mean? “objective relative”? Am I suppose to assume that those two words cancel each other out and just leave “reality?” Are you saying that it’s a reality which is an objective understanding of relative sensations? What does that mean? You’re just layering one word on top of another and not squeezing any extra meaning out of them.

I see the parameters of your reality and I agree with the conclusions you have come to within your reality. I just don't accept the same parameters

Obviously. Your parameters seem to include such gems as “existence doesn’t exist” and “nothing is absolute.” With parameters like that, who needs friends?

My god, how weak an argument do you have to have to spend an entire paragraph attacking a person instead of their arguments.

Actually, for the first half of that paragraph I talked about myself, and the second half was split between a comment directed at you and a list of the reasons your arguments bogging down the discussion. So, technically, I spent a quarter of an entire paragraph “attacking” you. Are you going to be all right? I can apologize if it will make you feel better.

Prove it. Please show us how "morality" is a thing. I would especially love to see that one… You can't say morality is real unless you prove it is

I never said morality was a thing. I just said that the possibility exists that it is a thing. I never said it was real, I just said that it could be real. I proved that the possibility exists, which means you can’t claim that the possibility doesn’t exist. Who’s throwing up straw men now?

I said: your reasoning is from the dark ages

Another personal attack?

Wow, you’re a vindictive little person, aren’t you? Not only was that part not directed at you but you actually put a smiley face on your reply when you thought I was trying to insult someone. I mean, it’s just an internet forum discussion, try not to get too personally involved in it.
BTW, the next two words in the next sentence were “Back then…” which a normal person would have interpreted to mean was refering to the sentence just before those two words. Then, the paragraph goes on to talk about reasoning in the dark ages, just like the sentence you were so excited about introduced. Seriously, you’re starting to lose your grip on the conversation.

…one man rejected everyone else's relative reality and came to his own based on evidence he found in his relative reality. All there relative realities were based on the same objective reality, he was just a better scientist.

EXACTLY!!!
He gathered evidence of reality, interpreted it, and came to a conclusion. Because his conclusion was a better predictor of future events he knew more about “objective reality” then anyone else. Because knowledge is what it is, no one else had to figure out what he had figured out. They could simply learn from him and the knowledge worked for them the same way it worked for him. His “relative reality” informed other people’s “relative realities” and everyone knew a little bit more about “objective reality.” How can you not be grasping this concept by now? Things are what they are and humans are capable of knowing what things are.

[vkut79]

What I meant by the aliens' relative reality was not that amongst themselves they had different relative realities, but that their collective relative reality (so individually they would all have essentially the same one) would be different than the human collective relative reality. There is little variation in each among the members, but between the two groups the difference would be large.

Okay, not dark matter, but something that they have access to and we don't on a fundamental level. Lets say they have access to aspects of reality that we don't.

Its true that this is all really hypothetical and easy to dismiss. In our daily lives obviously it has little relevance. I just find it interesting to speculate about.

Would you actually say that we are able to know all of reality? Think about it: we are reproduction machines. Every aspect of our existence is geared for that task. Why in the world would we be endowed with reason that extends far beyond our biological function? It is far more likely that our perception and cognition mechanisms extend to only a limited fragment of reality rather than all of it. It is practical to assume that all we are aware of is all that exists, and it exists in the way that we experience it. But philosophically this is a major problem and you have to accept the possibility that we could be limited to understanding only some smaller aspect of reality that we have access to. This theorizing has virtually no practical value, but still its interesting.

My sun example is like the question, if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? On one level you could analyze it in terms of sound waves and whether or not those alone constitute sound. On another level you can question if even the tree exists in the way we experience it outside of our mind. What if your brain was in a vat, stimulated by electrodes? Its ridiculous, sure, but that doesn't mean its impossible or unworthy of discussion. Similarly its possible that our reason isn't a supreme guide to "objective reality", and that it is merely an approximation of a relative reality that we have access to. Once you get down to business though, all of this theorizing has no place, and of course we all would dismiss it.

[Lights]

Blueback, why are you trying to polarize me into a relativist? :irked:

Since we seem to have drifted, let's start at the beginning. Here was my argument.

1. There is an objective reality.
2. The objective reality can only be observed through relative means (sensory experiences, human cognition, measurement, etc.) and therefore it can only be known relatively.
3. Our relative understanding of the objective universe (science, philosophy, etc.) is based upon standardized relative measurements (time, length, mass, etc.) and is therefore limited to certain parameters we have defined.
4. Therefore, there is also a relative reality based upon human perception of the objective reality.
5. The objective reality only has relative meaning to us.
6. Every individual experiences the relative reality differently.

Notice the first tenet is that I accept there is an objective reality. The only claim I am making is that humans aren't capable of perceiving it. I used this line of reasoning.

1. Relatives (here: shorthand for relative. experiences/perceptions/faculties/etc) can be perceived.
2. Our relatives are based on the objective.
3. Yet, the objective cannot be perceived specifically by us, therefore it only has relative meaning to us.

I made two charges with this line of reasoning.

1. Reason is only an objective means of interpreting relative reality.

Since reason is limited to understandings and experiences based on perception, it cannot be utilized to understand objective reality.

2. We cannot extrapolate absolute or universal truths from the objective reality.

We can extrapolate absolute or universal truths in relative reality. However, those truths are limited to the parameters by which they were derived. They are only true under all the conditions by which they were defined.

Now ultimately the difference in our philosophies comes down to one thing. You believe that we can directly observe the objective reality, and anything else is just an irrational fantasy. I believe that we are incapable of observing the objective reality and all our perceptions and sensory experiences form a relative reality.

From that difference you argue that reason is the fundamental means by which man comes to understand the true nature of the objective universe. Whereas I argue that science, the testing and retesting of relative beliefs in order to extract some confidence of objective truth, is the fundamental means by which man attempts (but can never completely succeed) at obtaining some insight into the objective universe.

Now both are reasonable perspectives. However, I don't like objectivism because I don't agree with the parameters and it seems dogmatic. But it seems you don't like what I'm saying for the same reasons.

So now that we have all that laid out, we can put the fallacies and insults aside and focus on these arguments. I'm enjoying this discussion immensely but I think we would get a lot further civilly discussing this, rather than attacking each other.

I'm actually finding it really interesting that this simple difference in opinion in metaphysics leads to entirely different perceptions of everything. :stunned: And we are even both agreeing on the existence of an objective reality. The difference comes from the argument of our ability to percieve it. Where I am saying that we are very limited in our ability to percieve objective reality because we are human and have limited relative senses and perceptions, you are saying that regardless of those limitations, with correct reason we can percieve things exactly as they are.

I guess it all comes down to one idea. Man is the measure of all things. Is that measurement objective or relative? Rand argues that man exists and is therefore an objective measure. I'm arguing that man may exist, but his senses and perceptions by which he observes existence are limited and thus relative. Rand argues that since man's existence is objective he can reason objective truths. I argue that since man's senses and perceptions are limited, he can only use science as a means of building confidence about what may be objective truth.

I feel a lot more inclined to accept my argument because people have correctly reasoned for centuries but have come to incorrect conclusions. A fact which is evident because people have lacked the experiences and knowledge that reason is based on. Of course this is an argument that Rand would dismiss by saying they didn't reason correctly, rather than accepting that reason is limited to what you know. Progress has been made through science not reason. Science tests established beliefs through experimentation to build confidence of what may be true. It never accepts anything as absolute, but rather just states it is supported by evidence.

[blueback]

I understand. I used to speculate on stuff like that, too. I guess I just found myself going around in circles so much that I got tired of it.

Yes, I would say that we are able to know all of reality. If there is a portion of reality that we are incapable of ever knowing anything about then it wouldn't be a part of reality. For us to be completely unaware of it this "thing" would have to have absolutely no effect on the parts of reality we are aware of, which means it doesn't exist.

We aren't "endowed" with anything, we are just the beneficiaries of a process. Reason is a powerful survival and replication tool, so of course evolution produced it. Just like everything else that evolution produced, it has applications other then survival and replication.

Technically our brain is sitting in a vat stimulated by electrodes. What do you think our skull and nerves are?

Reason is a tool we can use to engage the world in pursuit of our own life. Humans aren't born with the capacity to take care of themselves like animals and plants are. Humans have to learn everything. A human that fails or refuses to learn anything will die soon after its born or spend its entire life on life support. A human that actively seeks out new knowledge will not only survive but will prosper. The success or failure of any particular human's approach to life is played out in reality.

[Lights]

I understand. I used to speculate on stuff like that, too. I guess I just found myself going around in circles so much that I got tired of it.

Well as you can see, I'm not going in around in circles. I have my own basis of reasoning for what I believe.

Yes, I would say that we are able to know all of reality. If there is a portion of reality that we are incapable of ever knowing anything about then it wouldn't be a part of reality. For us to be completely unaware of it this "thing" would have to have absolutely no effect on the parts of reality we are aware of, which means it doesn't exist.

Well then I guess it comes down to assumptions. You are assuming that we can completely know objective reality, and I am assuming that we can't.

We aren't "endowed" with anything, we are just the beneficiaries of a process. Reason is a powerful survival and replication tool, so of course evolution produced it. Just like everything else that evolution produced, it has applications other then survival and replication.

I'm not disagreeing with that. Reason is essential to our survival. However, I would argue it is science, or its more primitive cousin, trial and error, that has lead man to progress.

Technically our brain is sitting in a vat stimulated by electrodes. What do you think our skull and nerves are?

Our skull is the protective covering. Our nerves are the means by which electrical and chemical messages can be transmitted.

Reason is a tool we can use to engage the world in pursuit of our own life. Humans aren't born with the capacity to take care of themselves like animals and plants are. Humans have to learn everything. A human that fails or refuses to learn anything will die soon after its born or spend its entire life on life support. A human that actively seeks out new knowledge will not only survive but will prosper. The success or failure of any particular human's approach to life is played out in reality.

I suppose that reason is the tool of self preservation. Perhaps that is why objectivism favors self interest and survival above all.

[vkut79]

Yeah it really does come down to assumptions. When there is lack of evidence for something, especially when that something is merely hypothetical and impractical, then it doesn't really matter if you believe in it or not.

I think it makes sense to say that reality is more than simply that which affects us. That's a human-centric view of reality, while I argue that there is an ultimate reality, and my whole argument is based on that assumption.

I'll get back to this later, gotta run.

[blueback]

Now ultimately the difference in our philosophies comes down to one thing. You believe that we can directly observe the objective reality, and anything else is just an irrational fantasy. I believe that we are incapable of observing the objective reality and all our perceptions and sensory experiences form a relative reality.


Yes, I get it. You think that we live in a reality of our own creation. You think that there is no way to reconcile our "relative reality" against "objective reality". Therefore you think that everything is an assumption or a guess because there's no way to ever test or prove anything.

And yet. . .you still hold your breath when you swim underwater. You must, because you're still alive to have this conversation. That means that you are perfectly capable of proving your guesses about "objective reality". You use the 3 axioms every day but at the same time you deny that they are even possible.

Oh, yeah, about the word "believe." You should look it up in a dictionary because you're using it improperly.


From that difference you argue that reason is the fundamental means by which man comes to understand the true nature of the objective universe. Whereas I argue that science, the testing and retesting of relative beliefs in order to extract some confidence of objective truth, is the fundamental means by which man attempts (but can never completely succeed) at obtaining some insight into the objective universe.


Now you're just arguing for degrees.
I say that we can understand "objective reality" and you say that we can "sort of" understand "objective reality." Do you think a 100 floor tall sky scraper is an example of sort of understanding reality? What about a system of seismographs that maps the entire core of the Earth, is that just a bare insight? Is brain surgery the lucky result of an smidgen of understanding?


Now both are reasonable perspectives.


If you think they're both reasonable at the same time then you don't understand either of them. They are mutually exclusive; they can't both be right.


However, I don't like objectivism because I don't agree with the parameters and it seems dogmatic. But it seems you don't like what I'm saying for the same reasons.


Okay, I can't change your personal prejudices. The axioms (parameters) that you "don't agree with" are very simple. And yet, for some reason, you haven't managed to prove a single one wrong. So the only reason you could possibly "not agree" with them is if you rejected them automatically, without rational thought.

I think that you're wrong because 1) you haven't proven anything I've said wrong, 2) your attempts are haphazard, and 3) your arguments are based on a dogmatic faith. You don't agree with the parameters of objectivism, okay, but the parameters you do agree with are so wrong they contradict themselves. If you had said that you rejected objectivism because you believed in God then at least you would have something. However, you reject objectivism and pretend that you've done it rationally. In my opinion, that's worse.


And we are even both agreeing on the existence of an objective reality.


It would be tought to communicate if nothing existed.


The difference comes from the argument of our ability to percieve it. Where I am saying that we are very limited in our ability to percieve objective reality because we are human and have limited relative senses and perceptions, you are saying that regardless of those limitations, with correct reason we can percieve things exactly as they are.


Yep. Your theory that our senses and our mind limit us fails to take into account the compounding nature of knowledge. Just because we can't sense x-rays directly doesn't mean we can't intercept them. Just because we can't calculate the trajectory of a spaceship in our heads doesn't mean we can't build a machine that can.

Reason isn't so much a "thing" as it is a process. Feed it information and it spits out knowledge automatically. . .as long as we let it. We are perfectly capable of interfering with our own processes. Just because some people choose not to think, doesn't mean they aren't capable of it.


Rand argues that man exists and is therefore an objective measure. I'm arguing that man may exist, but his senses and perceptions by which he observes existence are limited and thus relative.


Man MAY exist?
So. . . . . . . .you're not sure that you exist? Well, if that's true, then that would interfere with your ability to understand objectivism. Of course, the simple fact that you are capable of pondering the question of your own existence is pretty strong evidence that you do, in fact, exist.

Sure, our senses are limited and relative. Just because a modem is slow doesn't mean it can't load a webpage eventually. Some people take longer to learn then others, but as long as they have the time and the focus they will get the knowledge.


Rand argues that since man's existence is objective he can reason objective truths. I argue that since man's senses and perceptions are limited, he can only use science as a means of building confidence about what may be objective truth.


See? It's just a matter of degrees. You're so close to accepting the facts but you seem to be clinging to the idea that nothing can possibly be certain. Objectivism isn't a dogmatic faith, it's just a tool. When you are in math class you have to apply the rules of algebra correctly or you won't get the right answer. Objectivism is the same thing, you have to apply the rules correctly or you'll go astray. It's not dogma, it just works.


I feel a lot more inclined to accept my argument because people have correctly reasoned for centuries but have come to incorrect conclusions.


Yep, and they will continue to come to incorrect conclusions until the last sun in the last galaxy burns out. However, knowledge is objective. It doesn't matter how many times you get it wrong, as soon as you get it right you can move on to the next thing. Like trying to find your keys, no matter how many places you look you always find them in the last place because once you find them you don't have to look any more.


A fact which is evident because people have lacked the experiences and knowledge that reason is based on.


Of course, there have been long stretches of history where the human race decided that barbarism was better than enlightenment. However, over time, we have moved inexorably towards enlightenment. It's exponential, and we are somewhere near the elbow right now. The next 100 years should be very interesting.


Of course this is an argument that Rand would dismiss by saying they didn't reason correctly, rather than accepting that reason is limited to what you know.


Oh, she would? Did you actually read something she wrote and paraphrase her? What I think she would say is that you're right, your ability to reason is limited by what you know. When you don't know much, you have nothing for reason to work with. . . .and, of course, there is the fact that most people don't like to reason. It feels wrong to them, so they avoid it.


Progress has been made through science not reason.


. . . . . . .riiiiiight. Cuz science and reason have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. It's not like the scientific method was produced by reason or anything.


Science tests established beliefs through experimentation to build confidence of what may be true. It never accepts anything as absolute, but rather just states it is supported by evidence.


Again with misusing "belief." You really should visit a dictionary just once.

Yes, in the strictest technical sense, it's impossible to know everything. To do that you would have to overcome the heisenberg uncertainty principle, which you can't do because it's a fact of the natural world. However, because we know that uncertainty exist we can work around it. Knowledge isn't independent of action. Every "is" implies an "ought." Every thing we know implies ways it can be used and begs the quesiton as to whether or not it should be used in that way. When you have enough evidence that you no longer make errors when you employ knowledge, it's safe to say you understand.





blueback added to this post, 7 minutes and 9 seconds later...


I suppose that reason is the tool of self preservation. Perhaps that is why objectivism favors self interest and survival above all.

Close. Objectivism favors rational self-interest and conscious life over all. The main idea you should take away from objectivism is that every reasoning man has the right to be free from the use of force. Men who are acting in their rational self-interest trade value for value, they never take anything and they never accept anything. Their pride in their ability to provide for their own existence is more important than actually existing.

A lot of people don't like objectivism because they think it leads to anarchy, where everyone is a nasty, brutish individual who only takes care of #1. The opposite is true, the direct result of organizing along the lines of objectivism is democracy and capitalism. People confuse "egotism" for "egoism".

Seriously, would you embrace a philosophy that didn't favor life and the rights of the individual? You would if you supported tyranny.

[Lights]

Edit: I didn't know you were posting, so give me a moment blueback. All the below was in reply to vkut79.

Exactly, objectivism is based on the assumption that by method of reason man can identify facts of reality. We are arguing the assumption that because man has limited senses and perceptions, his reason is also limited, and he can't identify facts of reality with any certainty.

And as I said before, I feel a lot more inclined to accept my argument because people have correctly reasoned for centuries but have come to incorrect conclusions. A fact which is evident because people have lacked the experiences and knowledge that reason is based on. Of course this is an argument that Rand would dismiss by saying they didn't reason correctly, rather than accepting that reason is limited because it is based on limited knowledge and experience which in turn is based on limited senses and perceptions. Progress has been made through science not reason. Science tests established beliefs through experimentation to build confidence of what may be true. It never accepts anything as absolute, but rather just states it is supported by evidence. By contrast, reasoning is engaging in a process that leads to a conclusion or inference using known facts or assumptions. So the irony is that reason is based on uncertain knowledge (science, perceptions, sensory experiences) which it in turn tries to come to absolute certainties.

So we are arguing that it is an error to assume that a concept that is known only within the parameters of our senses and perceptions is valid outside our senses and perceptions. Rand, however, argues that humans can create universally valid concepts if they are reasoned out correctly. Both are still assumptions.

How strange is it that we have these differences in the way we think and interact with the world that are entirely based upon unfounded assumptions? I'm just thinking of all these objectvists who are willing to die for what they believe, and although they reject faith, their entire conception of reality is based upon the assumption that through sensory perception and a process of reasoning, man can achieve absolute knowledge of his environment. There really isn't any evidence or proof to support the idea, only complete confidence in that it must be true. And in that way, objectivism contradicts itself because it becomes a form of faith.

An interesting article I found.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





Lights added to this post, 28 minutes and 38 seconds later...

First off, I looked up belief in the dictionary and it is stated as

belief: any cognitive content held as true

That is how I intended it to be used, so if are ready to move past the semantics. :rolleyes:

Yes, I get it. You think that we live in a reality of our own creation. You think that there is no way to reconcile our "relative reality" against "objective reality". Therefore you think that everything is an assumption or a guess because there's no way to ever test or prove anything.

And yet. . .you still hold your breath when you swim underwater. You must, because you're still alive to have this conversation. That means that you are perfectly capable of proving your guesses about "objective reality". You use the 3 axioms every day but at the same time you deny that they are even possible.
Oh, yeah, about the word "believe." You should look it up in a dictionary because you're using it improperly.

Please stop using the same argument that I have rebutted countless times before. :rolleyes: I've stated many, many times that science, and trial by error, are the way we progress in our relative reality.

Now you're just arguing for degrees.
I say that we can understand "objective reality" and you say that we can "sort of" understand "objective reality." Do you think a 100 floor tall sky scraper is an example of sort of understanding reality? What about a system of seismographs that maps the entire core of the Earth, is that just a bare insight? Is brain surgery the lucky result of an smidgen of understanding?

Honestly, if you are going to keep making the same argument, but still ignore my rebuttal, then what is the point in even discussing anything with you. Progress has been made by science. There is no certainty.

If you think they're both reasonable at the same time then you don't understand either of them. They are mutually exclusive; they can't both be right.

Incorrect, mine accepts yours. As I've said before, you have defined your objective relative reality. Your reality may reject everyone else's because of the parameters you have accepted, but they are not mutually exclusive.

Okay, I can't change your personal prejudices. The axioms (parameters) that you "don't agree with" are very simple. And yet, for some reason, you haven't managed to prove a single one wrong. So the only reason you could possibly "not agree" with them is if you rejected them automatically, without rational thought.

I think that you're wrong because 1) you haven't proven anything I've said wrong, 2) your attempts are haphazard, and 3) your arguments are based on a dogmatic faith. You don't agree with the parameters of objectivism, okay, but the parameters you do agree with are so wrong they contradict themselves. If you had said that you rejected objectivism because you believed in God then at least you would have something. However, you reject objectivism and pretend that you've done it rationally. In my opinion, that's worse.

And you haven't managed to prove a single one right. See the article on retortion that I posted.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think we should set retortion aside because it relies on burden of proof.

It is incorrect to think we can percieve objective reality because no one can prove that we can't percieve objective reality.
The alternative is also true since it is also incorrect to think we cannot percieve objective reality because no one can prove that we can perceive objective reality.

So retortion proves nothing except we are good at wasting time going in circles.

It would be tought to communicate if nothing existed.

That it would.

Yep. Your theory that our senses and our mind limit us fails to take into account the compounding nature of knowledge. Just because we can't sense x-rays directly doesn't mean we can't intercept them. Just because we can't calculate the trajectory of a spaceship in our heads doesn't mean we can't build a machine that can.

Reason isn't so much a "thing" as it is a process. Feed it information and it spits out knowledge automatically. . .as long as we let it. We are perfectly capable of interfering with our own processes. Just because some people choose not to think, doesn't mean they aren't capable of it.

Nope, I argued that science is the means by which we progress. You just keep selectively leaving that out.

Man MAY exist?
So. . . . . . . .you're not sure that you exist? Well, if that's true, then that would interfere with your ability to understand objectivism. Of course, the simple fact that you are capable of pondering the question of your own existence is pretty strong evidence that you do, in fact, exist.

Sure, our senses are limited and relative. Just because a modem is slow doesn't mean it can't load a webpage eventually. Some people take longer to learn then others, but as long as they have the time and the focus they will get the knowledge.

You misread that, I wasn't disagreeing with Rand's assertion that man exists, but I was disagree with her assertion that his existence gave him objectivity.

See? It's just a matter of degrees. You're so close to accepting the facts but you seem to be clinging to the idea that nothing can possibly be certain. Objectivism isn't a dogmatic faith, it's just a tool. When you are in math class you have to apply the rules of algebra correctly or you won't get the right answer. Objectivism is the same thing, you have to apply the rules correctly or you'll go astray. It's not dogma, it just works.

No, it's not a matter of degree, its a matter of certainty. Objectivism is still based upon assumption.

Yep, and they will continue to come to incorrect conclusions until the last sun in the last galaxy burns out. However, knowledge is objective. It doesn't matter how many times you get it wrong, as soon as you get it right you can move on to the next thing. Like trying to find your keys, no matter how many places you look you always find them in the last place because once you find them you don't have to look any more.

We only hold knowledge based on confidence. That is the nature of science. Everything we know today, could be rewritten if we discovered a single piece of new evidence.

Of course, there have been long stretches of history where the human race decided that barbarism was better than enlightenment. However, over time, we have moved inexorably towards enlightenment. It's exponential, and we are somewhere near the elbow right now. The next 100 years should be very interesting.

And a single asteroid could come along, hit the planet and turn us back to the stone age in an instant. Knowledge is based on human conception of it.

Oh, she would? Did you actually read something she wrote and paraphrase her? What I think she would say is that you're right, your ability to reason is limited by what you know. When you don't know much, you have nothing for reason to work with. . . .and, of course, there is the fact that most people don't like to reason. It feels wrong to them, so they avoid it.

Ooooook.

. . . . . . .riiiiiight. Cuz science and reason have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. It's not like the scientific method was produced by reason or anything.

That would be correct. I would argue that methodology was actually created through trial and error, and then subsequent reasoning of what was most effective.

Again with misusing "belief." You really should visit a dictionary just once.

See above. The fact that you are attacking my terminology shows great weakness in your argument. Just because you can come up with a different definition of belief doesn't mean that mine is wrong. Words do often have more than one accepted meaning you know.

Yes, in the strictest technical sense, it's impossible to know everything. To do that you would have to overcome the heisenberg uncertainty principle, which you can't do because it's a fact of the natural world. However, because we know that uncertainty exist we can work around it. Knowledge isn't independent of action. Every "is" implies an "ought." Every thing we know implies ways it can be used and begs the quesiton as to whether or not it should be used in that way. When you have enough evidence that you no longer make errors when you employ knowledge, it's safe to say you understand.

Ah, so you need evidence to build confidence. You are getting so close to understanding. So close.

Close. Objectivism favors rational self-interest and conscious life over all. The main idea you should take away from objectivism is that every reasoning man has the right to be free from the use of force. Men who are acting in their rational self-interest trade value for value, they never take anything and they never accept anything. Their pride in their ability to provide for their own existence is more important than actually existing.

A lot of people don't like objectivism because they think it leads to anarchy, where everyone is a nasty, brutish individual who only takes care of #1. The opposite is true, the direct result of organizing along the lines of objectivism is democracy and capitalism. People confuse "egotism" for "egoism".

Seriously, would you embrace a philosophy that didn't favor life and the rights of the individual? You would if you supported tyranny.

Are you seriously arguing the logical fallacy that if I don't support objectivism then I support tyranny? :laugh:

I support aspects of objectivism, but not its entirety because I have my own reasoning and beliefs.

[vkut79]

Yes, I would say that we are able to know all of reality. If there is a portion of reality that we are incapable of ever knowing anything about then it wouldn't be a part of reality. For us to be completely unaware of it this "thing" would have to have absolutely no effect on the parts of reality we are aware of, which means it doesn't exist.

So if don't have access to some part of reality, and we are not affected by that part of reality, then it doesn't exist? I think you need to think more broadly about existence means. If you follow a human-centric view of reality, then obviously our relative reality will be the only reality that you will consider, and as such it will be the ultimate or objective reality. It makes sense now why we keep disagreeing. The axioms of Rand's "objectivism" are similarly based on a human-centric view of reality. It all comes down to whether or not you allow for the possibility that there is more to reality than simply what we humans experience.

We aren't "endowed" with anything, we are just the beneficiaries of a process. Reason is a powerful survival and replication tool, so of course evolution produced it. Just like everything else that evolution produced, it has applications other then survival and replication.

Technically our brain is sitting in a vat stimulated by electrodes. What do you think our skull and nerves are?

Endowed with it, the beneficiaries of it - same idea, different language. You know what I mean. Are you aware that evolution, generally, doesn't produce things that aren't necessary for the organism's survival and reproduction? If that is the case, then there is no reason to believe that there was a selective pressure for humans to evolve a reasoning capacity that would provide them will access to fundamental knowledge of existence. Although, as I mentioned before, if you define existence and reality human-centrically, then by default all that we are able to know is all that there is to know, and therefore we have access to fundumental knowledge of existence. Once again, I make a distinction between the relative reality that we humans experience and what reality is actually like independent of human experience.

Reason is a tool we can use to engage the world in pursuit of our own life. Humans aren't born with the capacity to take care of themselves like animals and plants are. Humans have to learn everything. A human that fails or refuses to learn anything will die soon after its born or spend its entire life on life support. A human that actively seeks out new knowledge will not only survive but will prosper. The success or failure of any particular human's approach to life is played out in reality.

No, humans are similarly born with the capacity to take care of themselves as animals and plants are. We ARE animals. If you disagree with that, then please explain. All animals learn to some extent, not just humans. If you raise an animal in captivity and then release it into the wild, it won't be able to function in the wild as well as wild animals because it had not been given the opportunity to learn how to survive in the wild. Humans just have more advanced brains than animals, that's it. There is no distinction other than that. Learning is important to all animals, perhaps more so for humans because have a greater capacity for it, but still.

[blueback]

I want to try taking a different track. It feels like we’re not getting anywhere with the discussion in its current form. Let me know what you think about this.

Okay, objectivism is based on the axiom that “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists […] perceiving that which exists.”

An axiom is either a self-evident truth, or an assumption made to begin reasoning from. Neither case requires that the axiom be proven. In the former case, it is unnecessary because the axiom is too simple to prove without using it in its own proof. In the latter case, it is unnecessary because no one cares whether or not it is true, just that everyone accepts it for the sake of argument. However, objectivism clearly claims that the axiom is of the former type.

On dictionary.com the definitions of existence all include the word existence. To define something you have to relate it to something else. That requires that you can get outside both things, set them next to each other, and compare similarities and differences. The fact that the definitions of existence include existence indicates that existence is a concept that has to be understood on its own because it can’t be related to anything else. This seems like strong evidence that “existence exists” is a true axiom in the sense that it can only be defined by itself.

According to dictionary.com, the word ‘consciousness’ is more flexible then ‘existence’ but the only definitions that weren’t medical, collective, or included the word ‘conscious’ stated that consciousness is awareness of self. Therefore, while the word itself can be used in more than one context, in this context it means that for something to be a consciousness it must be aware of its own consciousness.
The two corollary axioms both include the word ‘perceive.’ The definition of perceive is both knowledge of something obtained by the senses and the understanding of something in the mind. This makes it obvious that perception requires a “thing” to be aware of and a consciousness to become aware of the “thing.” In this case, the “thing” is existence and the consciousness is you, or me, or whoever. So, perception is what happens when ‘existence’ and ‘consciousness’ are in the same place. Or is it?

There is nothing that requires that a consciousness obtain any information of, or become aware of, existence outside of itself. It is possible that a consciousness not obtain any information of or become aware of anything other than its own existence.

This begs the question of what necessitates what. Can a consciousness exist on its own, without being a portion of ‘existence?’ Can a consciousness be all that exists? Well, there is nothing in the definition that precludes the possibility. It seems equally possible that consciousness requires existence to exist and that consciousness is all that is required for existence. I suppose this would be the classical argument between theism and atheism. Theists say that a consciousness is all that exists, atheists say that consciousnesses exist within existence. This explains why the two ideas are irreconcilable; based on everything we understand they are both equally possible.

So, is that as far as we can go? No, we can go farther.

I think that now we get into the realm of practicality. Just because two or more things are equally possible, doesn’t mean it matters which is true. If we are just smaller pieces of a larger consciousness (which is all that exists), or if we are consciousnesses which are smaller pieces of a larger existence, does it matter which is the truth? Nothing matters as long as we are never required to make a decision, therefore which state of existence is true only matters if it affects our decision making process. Since we have no way of determining which state is true, that means that neither one has more of an effect on us than the other. Therefore, the question is moot, it doesn’t matter which is true.

[Lights]

I want to try taking a different track. It feels like we’re not getting anywhere with the discussion in its current form. Let me know what you think about this.

Okay then.

Okay, objectivism is based on the axiom that “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists […] perceiving that which exists.”

An axiom is either a self-evident truth, or an assumption made to begin reasoning from. Neither case requires that the axiom be proven. In the former case, it is unnecessary because the axiom is too simple to prove without using it in its own proof. In the latter case, it is unnecessary because no one cares whether or not it is true, just that everyone accepts it for the sake of argument. However, objectivism clearly claims that the axiom is of the former type.

So your argument is that we can't claim that Rand's axioms are assumptions because they could also be self evident truths, both of which are unprovable beyond themselves. That's handy. :laugh: I can similarly make the claim that all my assumptions may also be self evident truths, and therefore may be unprovable beyond themselves. Although I don't really need to because I believe that we aren't capable of perceiving self evident truths.

On dictionary.com the definitions of existence all include the word existence. To define something you have to relate it to something else. That requires that you can get outside both things, set them next to each other, and compare similarities and differences. The fact that the definitions of existence include existence indicates that existence is a concept that has to be understood on its own because it can’t be related to anything else. This seems like strong evidence that “existence exists” is a true axiom in the sense that it can only be defined by itself.

We haven't argued about the existence of objective reality, only whether or not it can be perceived.

According to dictionary.com, the word ‘consciousness’ is more flexible then ‘existence’ but the only definitions that weren’t medical, collective, or included the word ‘conscious’ stated that consciousness is awareness of self. Therefore, while the word itself can be used in more than one context, in this context it means that for something to be a consciousness it must be aware of its own consciousness.
The two corollary axioms both include the word ‘perceive.’ The definition of perceive is both knowledge of something obtained by the senses and the understanding of something in the mind. This makes it obvious that perception requires a “thing” to be aware of and a consciousness to become aware of the “thing.” In this case, the “thing” is existence and the consciousness is you, or me, or whoever. So, perception is what happens when ‘existence’ and ‘consciousness’ are in the same place. Or is it?

As Descartes put it, "I think therefore I am." Since man can percieve, there must be something to percieve. However, by that premise, perception is the measure of all things.

There is nothing that requires that a consciousness obtain any information of, or become aware of, existence outside of itself. It is possible that a consciousness not obtain any information of or become aware of anything other than its own existence.

To the contrary. Without sensory experiences, there would be no perception, and thus no consciousness. If somebody were born into the world with no ability to see, hear, taste, touch, or smell then they would be dead to the world.

This begs the question of what necessitates what. Can a consciousness exist on its own, without being a portion of ‘existence?’ Can a consciousness be all that exists? Well, there is nothing in the definition that precludes the possibility. It seems equally possible that consciousness requires existence to exist and that consciousness is all that is required for existence. I suppose this would be the classical argument between theism and atheism. Theists say that a consciousness is all that exists, atheists say that consciousnesses exist within existence. This explains why the two ideas are irreconcilable; based on everything we understand they are both equally possible.

How can one be aware of their existence without existence? As I said before, we aren't arguing against objective reality, only the ability to directly percieve it. Your definitions are also incorrect. Theism is the belief in gods and deities whereas atheism is the belief there are no god or deities. Regardless, no one has made the claim that consciousness is all that exists (save perhaps relativists), only that man's consciousness is limited to his perception of his existence.

So, is that as far as we can go? No, we can go farther.

I think that now we get into the realm of practicality. Just because two or more things are equally possible, doesn’t mean it matters which is true.

That is what we have been arguing all along. When we state that everyone's objective relative reality is based upon different perceptions of objective reality, it is possible that people can come to different but not mutually exclusive conclusions based upon their perceptions of objective reality.

If we are just smaller pieces of a larger consciousness (which is all that exists), or if we are consciousnesses which are smaller pieces of a larger existence, does it matter which is the truth?

I'm not too sure what that has to do with either our argument or yours, but ok.

Nothing matters as long as we are never required to make a decision, therefore which state of existence is true only matters if it affects our decision making process.

Of course, within relative reality it is possible that there are more than one correct decisions, whereas within objective reality there is only one.

Since we have no way of determining which state is true, that means that neither one has more of an effect on us than the other. Therefore, the question is moot, it doesn’t matter which is true.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your conclusion. It sounds to me like you are making the neo objective argument that since it can't be proven God does or does not exists, it doesn't matter as long as it doesn't effect one's ability to reason. That doesn't have much to do with our argument on whether we are capable or are not capable of perceiving objective reality, unless you are making the claim that is doesn't matter as long as we can reason correctly.

[blueback]

I think you missed the point. I wasn't continuing the discussion I was starting over.

What I did was start from the same place objectivism starts and did my own reasoning to see where it took me. I referenced my sources and made sure that I didn't make any unfounded claims. The point was that you would follow my logic and either agree or disagree with each point.

This is a new train of logic, try to read it without any assumptions.

[Lights]

Okay, objectivism is based on the axiom that “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists […] perceiving that which exists.”

Agree.

An axiom is either a self-evident truth, or an assumption made to begin reasoning from. Neither case requires that the axiom be proven. In the former case, it is unnecessary because the axiom is too simple to prove without using it in its own proof. In the latter case, it is unnecessary because no one cares whether or not it is true, just that everyone accepts it for the sake of argument. However, objectivism clearly claims that the axiom is of the former type.

Agree.

On dictionary.com the definitions of existence all include the word existence. To define something you have to relate it to something else. That requires that you can get outside both things, set them next to each other, and compare similarities and differences. The fact that the definitions of existence include existence indicates that existence is a concept that has to be understood on its own because it can’t be related to anything else. This seems like strong evidence that “existence exists” is a true axiom in the sense that it can only be defined by itself.

Disagree. As Descartes put it, "I think therefore I am." Since man can percieve, there must be something to percieve. However, by that premise, perception is the measure of existence.

According to dictionary.com, the word ‘consciousness’ is more flexible then ‘existence’ but the only definitions that weren’t medical, collective, or included the word ‘conscious’ stated that consciousness is awareness of self. Therefore, while the word itself can be used in more than one context, in this context it means that for something to be a consciousness it must be aware of its own consciousness.
The two corollary axioms both include the word ‘perceive.’ The definition of perceive is both knowledge of something obtained by the senses and the understanding of something in the mind. This makes it obvious that perception requires a “thing” to be aware of and a consciousness to become aware of the “thing.” In this case, the “thing” is existence and the consciousness is you, or me, or whoever. So, perception is what happens when ‘existence’ and ‘consciousness’ are in the same place. Or is it?

I agree for the reason stated above. Since we can percieve, we must exist and there must be something to percieve.

There is nothing that requires that a consciousness obtain any information of, or become aware of, existence outside of itself. It is possible that a consciousness not obtain any information of or become aware of anything other than its own existence.

Disagree. Consciousness can only obtain awareness of its own existence from the perception of the existence of other things.

This begs the question of what necessitates what. Can a consciousness exist on its own, without being a portion of ‘existence?’ Can a consciousness be all that exists? Well, there is nothing in the definition that precludes the possibility. It seems equally possible that consciousness requires existence to exist and that consciousness is all that is required for existence. I suppose this would be the classical argument between theism and atheism. Theists say that a consciousness is all that exists, atheists say that consciousnesses exist within existence. This explains why the two ideas are irreconcilable; based on everything we understand they are both equally possible.

I disagree. The definition of consciousness is an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation. I believe one must be aware of their situation in order to be aware of themselves.

So, is that as far as we can go? No, we can go farther.

I think that now we get into the realm of practicality. Just because two or more things are equally possible, doesn’t mean it matters which is true.

I agree. When we state that everyone's objective relative reality is based upon different perceptions of objective reality, it is possible that people can come to different but not mutually exclusive conclusions based upon their perceptions of objective reality.

If we are just smaller pieces of a larger consciousness (which is all that exists), or if we are consciousnesses which are smaller pieces of a larger existence, does it matter which is the truth? Nothing matters as long as we are never required to make a decision, therefore which state of existence is true only matters if it affects our decision making process. Since we have no way of determining which state is true, that means that neither one has more of an effect on us than the other. Therefore, the question is moot, it doesn’t matter which is true.

I agree that as long as we are never required to make a decision, it doesn't matter what we believe.

[vkut79]

Let's just agree that all humans basically perceive "objective reality" in the same way, so that all humans share one conception of reality in common. This is our reality. Whether or not it differs from the "real" objective reality does not really concern us, for all we know is "our reality" (perhaps relative) that we all experience. We are conscious of this reality without any reason involved, and we use reason to some extent to figure out relationships among objects in this reality and our own consciousness. If everyone can agree to this, then does there really need to be further discussion about whether or not we can know "objective reality"?

[Lights]

Let's just agree that all humans basically perceive "objective reality" in the same way, so that all humans share one conception of reality in common. This is our reality. Whether or not it differs from the "real" objective reality does not really concern us, for all we know is "our reality" (perhaps relative) that we all experience. We are conscious of this reality without any reason involved, and we use reason to some extent to figure out relationships among objects in this reality and our own consciousness. If everyone can agree to this, then does there really need to be further discussion about whether or not we can know "objective reality"?

I can agree to that.

However, the crux is still whether or not there can be established absolute rules based on our perception of reality. The compromise I propose for this is that rules should not be assumed to be absolute, but rather should have evidence to support them and provide confidence of certainty. To assume that any rule is absolute is to assume an understanding of reality beyond that which concerns us. This is reasonable because if a rule is absolute and true, then there should be sufficient evidence to support it. To base arguments based on the assumption of absolute rules, rather than the evidence, is to be irrational because it provides no explanation outside of itself, nor does it allow for any capacity of thought, inference, or discrimination.

[blueback]

perception is the measure of existence

So you’re trying to say that something exists BECAUSE we perceive it and if we didn’t perceive it, it wouldn’t exist?

Consciousness can only obtain awareness of its own existence from the perception of the existence of other things

Yeah, I actually had some trouble with the definition of consciousness when I was writing that. Most of the definitions obviously weren’t applicable to the context, but a couple of them were and they were pretty vague. I’ve heard about experiments where test subjects had the part of their brain responsible for distinguishing between self and non-self shut down and they reported feeling “at one with the universe.” Just because they couldn’t tell the difference between self and non-self didn’t lead me to declare that they were no longer conscious. However, anyone who is no longer aware of themselves is no longer conscious. That’s why I choose to limit the definition to just awareness of self, without awareness of non-self.

Since we can percieve, we must exist and there must be something to perceive

This is where I was careful, and it’s related to my definition of consciousness. See, if nothing existed outside your mind, but something tricked you into thinking that things existed outside your mind, how would you know the difference? If we are perceiving mistakenly then your definition will lead us to assume that something exists outside ourselves when the perception is happening completely within our own consciousness. That’s why I limited the definition to just awareness of self.

Ultimately, in a purely theoretical sense, we are incapable of determining whether or not something we perceive is actually outside our own consciousness.

[Lights]

First off, it's kind of rude that you are ignoring vkut79. I think he has provided a perfectly reasonable compromise.

So you’re trying to say that something exists BECAUSE we perceive it and if we didn’t perceive it, it wouldn’t exist?

Nope, I'm saying exactly what I said. Perception is the measure of existence. What we know about existence is based upon our perception. We can't assume with certainty anything outside of that.

Yeah, I actually had some trouble with the definition of consciousness when I was writing that. Most of the definitions obviously weren’t applicable to the context, but a couple of them were and they were pretty vague. I’ve heard about experiments where test subjects had the part of their brain responsible for distinguishing between self and non-self shut down and they reported feeling “at one with the universe.” Just because they couldn’t tell the difference between self and non-self didn’t lead me to declare that they were no longer conscious. However, anyone who is no longer aware of themselves is no longer conscious. That’s why I choose to limit the definition to just awareness of self, without awareness of non-self.

I think once you have become aware of your consciousness, you don't stop even if your senses have been removed, however there is no study that could be done to prove that either way.

This is where I was careful, and it’s related to my definition of consciousness. See, if nothing existed outside your mind, but something tricked you into thinking that things existed outside your mind, how would you know the difference? If we are perceiving mistakenly then your definition will lead us to assume that something exists outside ourselves when the perception is happening completely within our own consciousness. That’s why I limited the definition to just awareness of self.

Ok, but what is real in the mind is real to the person, regardless of whether or not it exist in reality. That is the problem with relying on perception to tell us everything about reality.

Ultimately, in a purely theoretical sense, we are incapable of determining whether or not something we perceive is actually outside our own consciousness.

Be careful, that sounded dangerously like an argument against objectivism.

[vkut79]

This is where I was careful, and it’s related to my definition of consciousness. See, if nothing existed outside your mind, but something tricked you into thinking that things existed outside your mind, how would you know the difference? If we are perceiving mistakenly then your definition will lead us to assume that something exists outside ourselves when the perception is happening completely within our own consciousness. That’s why I limited the definition to just awareness of self.

Ultimately, in a purely theoretical sense, we are incapable of determining whether or not something we perceive is actually outside our own consciousness.

Very similar to Descartes' reasoning in his Meditations. This has probably been the biggest problem in all of philosophical history. You either assume that the things perceived exist (naturally) or you question whether or not they exist, and then it becomes very difficult. Personally I don't see any way to escape skepticism if you press this question, you have to make some assumption somewhere along the way.

Either way though, you will still perceive the objects the same way whether or not they exist outside your consciousness or not.





vkut79 added to this post, 11 minutes and 28 seconds later...

I can agree to that.

However, the crux is still whether or not there can be established absolute rules based on our perception of reality. The compromise I propose for this is that rules should not be assumed to be absolute, but rather should have evidence to support them and provide confidence of certainty. To assume that any rule is absolute is to assume an understanding of reality beyond that which concerns us. This is reasonable because if a rule is absolute and true, then there should be sufficient evidence to support it. To base arguments based on the assumption of absolute rules, rather than the evidence, is to be irrational because it provides no explanation outside of itself, nor does it allow for any capacity of thought, inference, or discrimination.

I think blueback would agree as well that we shouldn't have absolute rules in regards to the reality that we observe. We can never know if we know everything there is to know about a particular phenomenon of reality, no matter how much reliable evidence we have. That's how science works. When you say absolute rules do you mean axioms, like "existence is" and "consciousness is"? Well those have to be accepted with certainty otherwise no further progress can be made.

[blueback]

First off, it's kind of rude that you are ignoring vkut79. I think he has provided a perfectly reasonable compromise.


I don't have to respond to anything. I think it's kind of rude that you are trying to make me feel bad about something that has nothing to do with you.


Nope, I'm saying exactly what I said. Perception is the measure of existence. What we know about existence is based upon our perception. We can't assume with certainty anything outside of that.


Yes, again with the quoting yourself. My question hinged on the fact that it sounds like you are saying that existence depends on perception. The original idea was focused on defining existence, therefore, it was reasonable for me to think you were trying to define existence. If you're not defining existence, if instead you're defining perception, then all you have to do is say so.


I think once you have become aware of your consciousness, you don't stop even if your senses have been removed, however there is no study that could be done to prove that either way.


This is a key question; do you need to be aware of non-self to be aware of self? Is it possible to be conscious without being aware of anything that is outside your own consciousness? Obviously consciousness requires self-awareness, but does it require non-self-awareness?

If consciousness ONLY requires awareness of self, then anything is possible. You could all be figments of my imagination. On the other hand, if consciousness requires awareness of self and non-self than reality must exist objectively because we're conscious.


Ok, but what is real in the mind is real to the person, regardless of whether or not it exist in reality. That is the problem with relying on perception to tell us everything about reality.


True. However, that leaves us with a choice. Do we assume our perception is informing us of existence correctly or do we assume that our perception is tricking us?

Whatever our existence, it has to be consistent. If it's not consistent, if reality can change without any notice, then there's no point in trying to figure any of it out. Either all reality is in my head and I'm imagining having this conversation with you. . .which would be the most egotistical thing I've ever heard of (but still possible). . .or reality exists and I exist perceiving it.

Okay, if it's the former, then I should be omnipotent. If all this is in my head I should be able to do whatever I want, I should be God. All the rules are just contingent on my accepting them and playing along, if I want something to happen it will happen. Since I can't make things happen by wanting them to happen, it must be the latter. Reality exists seperate from me and the rules are absolute. That means that no matter how flawed my perception of reality, all it takes is more tests for error checking. As long as reality is absolute, and I have senses and time, I will sample enough of reality to know the absolute rules.


Be careful, that sounded dangerously like an argument against objectivism.


Yeah, it must be confusing to run into someone who is legitimately open to the possibility that they're wrong. I want the truth. If I have to be wrong a few times to get to it I'm okay with that.

However, I think I just proved that we can determine whether or not reality is all in our head. Either that, or we can prove that our own consciousness is providing such a good simulation of reality that we are incapable of violating the rules, which would be no different then if reality really did exist outside our consciousness and it wouldn't matter which it was.


vkut79: I didn't ignore you to be rude, I'm just not done talking about this.

[stasis]

It's called cognitive and/or perceptual bias. It's the fact that the objective reality cannot be understood by man, because he can only percieve it through his own subjective senses and thinking.
I think that is illogical. If I'm reading you correctly, it requires relegating human experience itself to an illusion entirely separate from the so-called objective reality, in which case one cannot purport to understand anything at all about that objective reality - including that it has any characteristics that are (somehow) by definition inconceivable by the human creature, for this would be a statement about the "objective reality" of human conception and/or perception and therefore also a statement about "objective reality," which you claim cannot be understood.

So. You would say that this objective reality is translated into what by humankind, that translation manifesting how and/or where exactly? And if not in "objective reality," how not subject to it? And if indeed subject to it, how objectively disconnected so as to be impervious to actual extrapolation and therefore knowledge of, and therefore an eventual understanding of that "objective reality"?

Are you going for some kind of epistemological implosion, or something?

[Lights]

I don't have to respond to anything. I think it's kind of rude that you are trying to make me feel bad about something that has nothing to do with you.

My apologies. It's that darn Fe. I want everyone to feel included. :thumbsup:

Yes, again with the quoting yourself. My question hinged on the fact that it sounds like you are saying that existence depends on perception. The original idea was focused on defining existence, therefore, it was reasonable for me to think you were trying to define existence. If you're not defining existence, if instead you're defining perception, then all you have to do is say so.

All I was saying is that everything we know about existence comes from our perception. It is the measure of everything we know.

This is a key question; do you need to be aware of non-self to be aware of self? Is it possible to be conscious without being aware of anything that is outside your own consciousness? Obviously consciousness requires self-awareness, but does it require non-self-awareness?

I would say so, assuming by non-self you mean those things that exist outside our consciousness.

If consciousness ONLY requires awareness of self, then anything is possible. You could all be figments of my imagination. On the other hand, if consciousness requires awareness of self and non-self than reality must exist objectively because we're conscious.

No one is challenging whether objective reality exists, only whether we have the capacity to percieve it. As has been said before, our relative realities are based upon our perceptions of objective reality. That is why they are so similar. When we communicate our perceptions, they become even more similar.

True. However, that leaves us with a choice. Do we assume our perception is informing us of existence correctly or do we assume that our perception is tricking us?

If we were wise, we wouldn't assume anything. We would seek evidence from our relative realities in order to obtain knowledge which has some confidence of certainty. We would then constantly seek to find evidence to disprove what we just proved.

Whatever our existence, it has to be consistent. If it's not consistent, if reality can change without any notice, then there's no point in trying to figure any of it out. Either all reality is in my head and I'm imagining having this conversation with you. . .which would be the most egotistical thing I've ever heard of (but still possible). . .or reality exists and I exist perceiving it.

Okay, if it's the former, then I should be omnipotent. If all this is in my head I should be able to do whatever I want, I should be God. All the rules are just contingent on my accepting them and playing along, if I want something to happen it will happen. Since I can't make things happen by wanting them to happen, it must be the latter. Reality exists seperate from me and the rules are absolute. That means that no matter how flawed my perception of reality, all it takes is more tests for error checking. As long as reality is absolute, and I have senses and time, I will sample enough of reality to know the absolute rules.

You seem to be making the assumption that we are claiming that our relative realties aren't based on anything, and thus are subject to the whim of our consciousness. However, we have consistently made the opposing claim. That our relative realities are based upon objective reality, and are therefore as consistent as our perception of objective reality.

Yeah, it must be confusing to run into someone who is legitimately open to the possibility that they're wrong. I want the truth. If I have to be wrong a few times to get to it I'm okay with that.

I must admit, it isn't something I run across very often on this forum.

However, I think I just proved that we can determine whether or not reality is all in our head. Either that, or we can prove that our own consciousness is providing such a good simulation of reality that we are incapable of violating the rules, which would be no different then if reality really did exist outside our consciousness and it wouldn't matter which it was.


What you proved is absolute relativism is wrong. That there must be an objective reality despite our perceptions of it. In that sense, I completely agree with you. However, you have not proven whether or not we can percieve objective reality, only that it does indeed exist outside our heads. As far as our conception of reality, it is still dictated by our limited perceptions.

If you want to disprove my argument, prove that our perceptions don't affect our conception of reality.





Lights added to this post, 23 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Whoa, that quote was from a long time ago.

If I'm reading you correctly, it requires relegating human experience itself to an illusion entirely separate from the so-called objective reality, in which case one cannot purport to understand anything at all about that objective reality

Correct.

- including that it has any characteristics that are (somehow) by definition inconceivable by the human creature, for this would be a statement about the "objective reality" of human conception and/or perception and therefore also a statement about "objective reality," which you claim cannot be understood.

That, however, I am not insinuating. To the contrary, I'm arguing that our conception of reality is a relative reality within our heads that is based upon perceptions of the objective reality. I am saying that we can't understand objective reality as it is, only as we can percieve it, so objective reality only has relative meaning to us. We can understand objective reality, but only through our subjective senses and thinking.

So. You would say that this objective reality is translated into what by humankind, that translation manifesting how and/or where exactly? And if not in "objective reality," how not subject to it? And if indeed subject to it, how objectively disconnected so as to be impervious to actual extrapolation and therefore knowledge of, and therefore an eventual understanding of that "objective reality"?

Are you going for some kind of epistemological implosion, or something?

My reasoning.

1. Relatives (here: shorthand for relative. experiences/perceptions/faculties/etc) can be perceived.
2. Our relatives are based on the objective.
3. Yet, the objective cannot be perceived specifically by us, therefore it only has relative meaning to us.

I'm not arguing for anything mutually exclusive.

For my complete reasoning see this post.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[blueback]

prove that our perceptions don't affect our conception of reality.

Okay.

american heritage dictionary (I underlined the definition I'm going to use)
Perceive: To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing. To achieve understanding of; apprehend.

Reality: The quality or state of being actual or true. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. That which exists objectively and in fact

Concept: A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion


Here's what happens:
Things exist in reality and our senses are capable of gathering information about them. The things which exist are what they are, they don't change and they don't do anything they can't do. Basically, all that means is that reality is a constant and is therefore worth attempting to understand. If reality could change without warning then none of this would matter.

Because things are what they are, the potential to gather information about them is always the same. Just because cavemen didn't have the ability to see bacteria doesn't mean the bacteria weren't there. Also, just because information is corrupted during gathering doesn't mean that reality isn't constant. If a scientist looks into a microscope and sees a long thin bacteria, but it's an optical illusion created by deformed optics and the bacteria is really round, the potential to see the bacteria as it really is is still constant.

Therefore, any error in perception (information gathering) is not present in reality. Reality doesn't contain any errors, the errors happen during information gathering, translation, storage or retreival. That means that it doesn't matter how badly we perform any of those functions. Over enough samples the errors will be canceled out and only a correct image of reality will remain. For an error to be "proven" to the same level as non-error it could only be the result of a systemic flaw in the perception process.

If no on could tell the difference between red or green then humans would have an image of reality that didn't include those two colors. However, the error would have to be carried forward into all our machines, too. No human being can detect radio waves, but our machines can, therefore the error of non-existent radio waves is fixed. We still can't sense them directly, but we are fully aware of their existence and how they relate to everything else. Our conceptualization of radio-waves is complete despite the fact that no human could sense them naturally.

Based on that idea, it's just a matter of time and effort to understand all of reality. As long as we keep sampling as many different things in as many different ways as possible (perception) and compare them to each other (concepts) we will fully understand reality.




So, as that applies to our discussion. The fundamental attribution error is a systemic flaw in perception. However, not everyone makes that mistake. Since the people who don't make that mistake are more successful than those who do, it's obvious who's right. That knowledge allows those who suffer from the error to correct for it and fix their conception of reality.

[Lights]

That doesn't exactly prove that our perceptions don't affect our conception of reality. To the contrary, it proves that mistakes in our perception (human cogntive errors, etc.), the limitations of perceptions (what colors we see, our inability to percieve radio wave, etc.), and the parameters we define (relative measurements, etc.) are all constant limitations on our ability to percieve reality as it is. You then make the claim that we need to constantly test and retest our environment to filter out the errors and increase our confidence in certainty (or prove as you see it) our understanding of reality.

This isn't any different that what I have been saying through this entire thread.

[blueback]

That doesn't exactly prove that our perceptions don't affect our conception of reality. To the contrary, it proves that [stuff] are all constant limitations on our ability to percieve reality as it is.


It does prove that mistakes in perceptions don't affect our concept of reality. Refer back to the definition I posted. I proved logically that no matter how flawed our perception process migth be, because reality is constant the errors will cancel out over many 'perceptions.'

The limitations on our perception process, though they be many and varied, don't matter. Our conception of reality will simply be updated as errors are exposed.

I'll state it very simply:
1) reality is constant
2) our perception process gathers information about reality
3) our rational mind links pieces of perceived information with concepts
4) our rational mind makes predictions about reality based on concepts
5) our perception process gathers feedback
* and the whole thing repeats over and over again


You then make the claim that we need to constantly test and retest our environment to filter out the errors and increase our confidence in certainty (or prove as you see it) our understanding of reality.

This isn't any different that what I have been saying through this entire thread.


So. . .are you saying you agree that our conception of reality is unaffected by errors in perception?

[stasis]

I'm arguing that our conception of reality is a relative reality within our heads that is based upon perceptions of the objective reality. I am saying that we can't understand objective reality as it is, only as we can percieve it, so objective reality only has relative meaning to us. We can understand objective reality, but only through our subjective senses and thinking.
What would you say our perceptions are in essence? Of what are they existentially composed? How is their operation defined? If you say that an objective reality exists around us, how are you not necessarily requiring by consequence that we are physically defined by that objective reality in existing ourselves? Our senses are not our conceptions. What we perceive would be the so-called objective reality, directly, both in terms of the sensory input and the perceptive process which delivers the input to be conceived of. Perhaps we can conceive of it with varying degrees of resolution, depending in part upon how much we've perceived over time and how we have integrated those perceptions with conceptions to yield a productive understanding, but this would be something altogether distinct from saying that the so-called objective reality could not be understood because of our perception of it. It would be to say that objective reality is understood in pieces, and that's something that doesn't preclude understanding at all.


3. Yet, the objective cannot be perceived specifically by us
You state this repeatedly. Why not?

[Lights]

It does prove that mistakes in perceptions don't affect our concept of reality.

True, mistakes in perceptions don't affect objective reality. However, they do affect how we understand reality.

Refer back to the definition I posted. I proved logically that no matter how flawed our perception process migth be, because reality is constant the errors will cancel out over many 'perceptions.'

That is assuming that we do eventually have the correct "perception". What if we never have the correct perception? What if our limitations make it impossible for us as humans to have the correct perception about certain aspects of reality?

The limitations on our perception process, though they be many and varied, don't matter. Our conception of reality will simply be updated as errors are exposed.

I'll state it very simply:
1) reality is constant
2) our perception process gathers information about reality
3) our rational mind links pieces of perceived information with concepts
4) our rational mind makes predictions about reality based on concepts
5) our perception process gathers feedback
* and the whole thing repeats over and over again

The problem is that perceptions are not constant. Since they are the only measure by which we can measure a constant reality, we can only test and retest the beliefs we have derived from our perceptions. However, we are never even certain that we have to come to the correct perception. So we are always in uncertainty about reality.

So...are you saying you agree that our conception of reality is unaffected by errors in perception?

Nope, see above.

Edit: I gotta go to dinner, so I will get back to you later stasis. However, if you read some of my posts in this thread, then I think you will find the answers to the questions you are asking.

[blueback]

That is assuming that we do eventually have the correct "perception". What if we never have the correct perception? What if our limitations make it impossible for us as humans to have the correct perception about certain aspects of reality?


We don't have to every have the "correct" perception. Actually, we wouldn't know it if we did have it. The error correction is only the result of many idential pieces of information. Because reality is constant, and errors are random, we can sort out the bits of infromation that are correct from the occassional bit that is incorrect.

I already addressed systemic errors. I said that humans aren't capable of sensing everything, but that our machines are. Our machines translate the information into a form we can percieve and it is incorporated into our conceptual map the same way everything else is. Remember the radio wave example?


However, we are never even certain that we have to come to the correct perception. So we are always in uncertainty about reality.


You're confusing the terms. Our perceptions may be flawed, but that doesn't stop our rational mind from comparing many perceptions against each other to check for redundancy. Any piece of information that shows up often is more likely to be correct. Then we can make a prediction about reality and test it. Then we can receive feedback about our conceptual map.

There are quite a number of things in reality that people are certain about. I've been providing examples of them all day. For example, you are certain that if you step off a cliff you will fall to the ground and die. You've never actually done that, so you've never actually perceived what happens when you walk off a cliff, but you've perceived what happens when other people walk off cliffs. That is enough to convince you that walking off a cliff is definitely bad for your health.

On the other hand, if you want to prove that our conceptions of reality are uncertain you could always walk off a cliff and not fall. That would convince me.

[vkut79]

You're not understanding his point correctly. Forget about human error - that's not the key issue. Here's what its all about.

Imagine that you exist in an objective reality.

You perceive that objective reality with your limited perception/cognition apparatus. This limited perception/cognition apparatus defines your consciousness completely.

Picture it like this. Because you perceive and reason about objective reality through your perception/cognition apparatus, it is as if you were wearing tinted glasses that made everything appear to you in a certain color. You see things in a kind of obstructed, limited way, although what you are seeing is still an appearance governed by objective reality. To be able to fully grasp what objective reality is through non-relative means, you would have to take those tinted glasses off - but you can't. Therefore you can only know objective reality relatively, seeing it through those glasses. So there is consistency between your relative reality and objective reality, but you can't comprehend what objective reality actually is in all its glory because it is beyond access.

Machines won't help you. Its more fundamental then just our inability to perceive natural phenomenon. The tinted glasses affect all of our conscious experience. Not only our perception, but our reason as well is "tinted", i.e. it does not give us access to an understanding of what objective reality is REALLY like.

So we CAN know about objective reality. We can know about it relatively (important point). Its just that we see it in a limited way, through our specific perception/cognition apparatus, and we simply cannot comprehend what objective reality is like on its own (our mind cannot do it).

Hopefully you understand Lights' point better from my example there.

BTW I got all this theory from Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (in my intro to philosophy of the mind class last semester). I'm basically paraphrasing his doctrine of Transcendental Idealism - basically that the reality we know is real, but its transcendentally ideal, i.e. defined partly by our perception/cognitive apparatus.

*at least I think thats what Lights is trying to say. Let me know if you disagree on something.

[Lights]

@ bb

Alright, at this point, let's just agree to disagree since this has once again come down to the argument of whether or not we can percieve objective reality. I still don't see any argument that can eliminate skepticism from the equation. Now if this was limited to physical science then I wouldn't have as much trouble accepting your side for the sake of compromise, but since you honestly believe that we can extrapolate absolute truth about morality, ethics, and values, especially based on our limited perceptions, I'm far from accepting your arguments.

I'm withdrawing from the discussion. Take that as a victory if you want. I've already spent hours upon hours going over these arguments here and other forums, and I'm very comfortable with the conclusions I have reached, which I will continue to test.

Also, I just have too much real life experience that proves completely counter to Rand's arguments to accept them, so since there is not much of getting me to change my mind, and since I doubt I could change your mind, the discussion will just become endless. It was fun, but I got to go study now. :laugh:

Vkut is doing a far better job of discussing it anyways.

[vkut79]

I should be studying too. This is a good procrastination tool. It's also a good break from mostly math/science work, which can hurt your brain after a while.

[stasis]

Imagine that you exist in an objective reality.

You perceive that objective reality with your limited perception/cognition apparatus. This limited perception/cognition apparatus defines your consciousness completely.

Picture it like this. Because you perceive and reason about objective reality through your perception/cognition apparatus, it is as if you were wearing tinted glasses that made everything appear to you in a certain color.
Since Lights doesn't want to answer the question, I shall attempt asking you something similar. We can look at your tinted-glasses analogy, for example. How are you getting from the concept of 'limited intake' to the concept of 'obstructed intake'? From the narrow vision of objectively incomplete perspective to the filtered vision of objectively exclusive perspective? Why does the one necessitate the other?

[prometheus]

A friend of mine posted this at another forum I belong to and it reminded me of several members here.

Ms. Pickler threw up both hands and looked at the large blackboard perplexed. "I thought Europe was a country," she said. Playing it safe, she chose to copy the answer offered by one of the genuine fifth graders: Hungary. "Hungry?" she said, eyes widening in disbelief. "That's a country? I've heard of Turkey. But Hungry? I've never heard of it."

Such, uh, lack of global awareness is the kind of thing that drives Susan Jacoby, author of "The Age of American Unreason," up a wall. Ms. Jacoby is one of a number of writers with new books that bemoan the state of American culture.
But now, Ms. Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that "too much learning can be a dangerous thing") and anti-rationalism ("the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion") have fused in a particularly insidious way.

Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don't think it matters.

She pointed to a 2006 National Geographic poll that found nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds don't think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. So more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.
"This is just like Pearl Harbor," one of the men said.

The other asked, "What is Pearl Harbor?"

"That was when the Vietnamese dropped bombs in a harbor, and it started the Vietnam War," the first man replied.
Ms. Jacoby doesn't expect to revolutionize the nation's educational system or cause millions of Americans to switch off "American Idol" and pick up Schopenhauer. But she would like to start a conversation about why the United States seems particularly vulnerable to such a virulent strain of anti-intellectualism.
In part, she lays the blame on a failing educational system. "Although people are going to school more and more years, there's no evidence that they know more," she said.

[Lights]

A friend of mine posted this at another forum I belong to and it reminded me of several members here.

I know I said I wouldn't post in this discussion, but I just had to ask, what the hell does that have to do with anything that was discussed in this thread, or were you just posting that to say that anyone who doesn't agree with the standards of objectivism must be anti-intellectual and anti-rational? :rolleyes:

I'm hoping you just posted that in the wrong thread by mistake and you aren't that oblivious.

[prometheus]

I know I said I wouldn't post in this discussion, but I just had to ask, what the hell does that have to do with anything that was discussed in this thread, or were you just posting that to say that anyone who doesn't agree with the standards of objectivism must be anti-intellectual and anti-rational? :rolleyes:

I'm hoping you just posted that in the wrong thread by mistake and you aren't that oblivious.


......the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion.

Hasn't this argument been put forward here? :p Just wanted to show those people who believe this they aren't alone.

Just out numbered by the intellectuals here.

[Lights]

......the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion.

Hasn't this argument been put forward here? :p Just wanted to show those people who believe this they aren't alone.

Nobody made that argument. Maybe you should actually do some reading before you make assumptions. :rolleyes:

[prometheus]

Nobody made that argument. Maybe you should actually do some reading before you make assumptions. :rolleyes:


:laugh::laugh::laugh: Speaking of assumptions.

Well then I guess it comes down to assumptions. You are assuming that we can completely know objective reality, and I am assuming that we can't.

Everything like this you have posted in this thread and there are dozens of examples, indicates you do indeed support anti-rationalism.

[Lights]

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Speaking of assumptions.



Everything like this you have posted in this thread and there are dozens of examples, indicates you do indeed support anti-rationalism.

To the contrary. That just proves that you have no conception whatsoever of what we were discussing. Nobody has stated that there is no such thing as facts or evidence. I'll try to outline if for you.

The argument vkut and I were making against objectivism is that Rand made an unfounded dismissal of philosophical skepticism. I was presenting an alternative model to explain human conception of reality and citing science as evidence that humans have found a system of testing and retesting to obtain confidence of certainty that is a far more efficient at understanding reality than reasoning alone.

I know all that might be a little above your head, but I hate having someone like you come into an intelligent discussion and try it to ruin it by posting shit that has nothing to do with what people are talking about. Nobody was rejecting reality or arguing absolute relativism, and so nobody was making the claim that all that was important was opinion. Now if you can actually manage to read the discussion instead of picking tid bits that you think support your assumptions, then you would know this.





Lights added to this post, 15 minutes and 30 seconds later...

In fact, here is a post in this very thread that directly contradicts the claim you are making that I am anti-rational.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

According to Rand, concepts and values are not intrinsic to external reality, nor are they merely subjective (by which Rand means "arbitrary" or "created by [one's] feelings, desires, 'intuitions,' or whims"; like wishful thinking). Rather, valid concepts and values are, as she wrote, "determined by the nature of reality, but to be discovered by man's mind."

In epistemology and in its broadest sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive"

Your latest statements are perfect examples of anti-rationalism. These larger words have definitive meanings assuming you can understand that theory. The definitions I have posted above for you.

Can you compare the above definitions to your prior statements in this thread, or shall I hold your hand and walk you through it.





prometheus added to this post, 23 minutes and 32 seconds later...

I find her belief that people can know the objective world to be wrong. I believe we can only know it, relatively. To say that we can understand the objective universe through reason just seems ludicrous to me.

Exactly, but I don't think we can even percieve [SIC] objective reality.

These are just from the first page of this thread, you have repeated your anti-rationalism beliefs in every thread I've been involved with you here.

I feel you sitting on your ass at work debating your personal beliefs while being paid (by us) to do something else (god know what) is wrong and isn't a "relative reality".

[Lights]

Here was my case.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here was my conclusion.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Go ahead and prove I was utilizing "anti-rationalism ("the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion")".

[blueback]

Hey Prometheus, it's nice to have someone around who cites their resources and defines their terms ;-P

Oh, and don't fall for that "prove it" trick. You'll spend an hour explaining the proof and Lights will respond in ten minutes to remind you that you're still wrong.

"Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when he is called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason" - Oscar Wilde

"When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit" - Ayn Rand

"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this" - Bertrand Russell

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.” - Joseph Heller

“I think I got off on the wrong planet. Beam me up Scotty, there's no rational life here.” - Robert Anton Wilson

“For the rational, psychologically healthy man, the desire for pleasure is the desire to celebrate his control over reality. For the neurotic, the desire for pleasure is the desire to escape from reality.” - Nathaniel Branden

“Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.” - Ethan Allen

[prometheus]

Bb, this isn't my first rodeo. I've "debated" with lights before, and a lot of times I'll explain my points for other readers. In this case though I feel it's obvious to anyone with a Jr. High education that his belief structure is "fluid" enough to justify all kinds of immoral, unethical, illegal acts and he prefers it that way and refuses to honestly look at any rational arguments.

[blueback]

Word to the bird.

[vkut79]

Since Lights doesn't want to answer the question, I shall attempt asking you something similar. We can look at your tinted-glasses analogy, for example. How are you getting from the concept of 'limited intake' to the concept of 'obstructed intake'? From the narrow vision of objectively incomplete perspective to the filtered vision of objectively exclusive perspective? Why does the one necessitate the other?

Our perspective of objective reality is limited and incomplete, true. We perceive and know objective reality only in a specific form. Therefore, we perceive only a "filtered" version of objective reality, it follows necessarily. I'm not sure where you are getting "obstructed intake". Its just limited and incomplete, and in a unique form that is determined by our perception/cognition apparatus. I'm writing in a hurry so maybe I didn't fully understand your question.

[stasis]

Our perspective of objective reality is limited and incomplete, true. We perceive and know objective reality only in a specific form. Therefore, we perceive only a "filtered" version of objective reality, it follows necessarily. I'm not sure where you are getting "obstructed intake". Its just limited and incomplete, and in a unique form that is determined by our perception/cognition apparatus. I'm writing in a hurry so maybe I didn't fully understand your question.
It sounds like you understood. What I am attempting to get at is the idea that a 'limited intake' is not the same thing as an 'obstructed intake', and that nor does the existence of the former imply or require the existence of the latter. By "obstruction," I am talking about an intake which excludes input by filtering that input, actually blocks the input, prevents some of the input from penetrating - in sum, modifies the input such that it is of a qualitatively degraded substance versus the objective possible input. Whereas a 'limited intake' on the other hand simply accepts part of a total, manifesting as a quantitatively degraded substance verses the objective possible input. An obstructed intake is a form of limited intake, but a limited intake isn't necessarily an obstructed intake.

Tinted glasses are an example of an 'obstructed intake' in that they filter the input by actually degrading it qualitatively at the lens. To contrast, pinhole glasses would represent a 'limited intake' in that they simply constrict the total input at any given time. The pinhole is quantitative degradation: while you get alot less at once, what comes across isn't being stripped of something.

The reason I raise this distinction is because it is critically salient to the question of what can be understood about the objective source of the input and what cannot. If we are looking at a so-called objective reality through tinted glasses, if our input is filtered, if it is qualitatively degraded, if entire spectrums of it are fundamentally blocked, then nothing about the actual state of that material can be understood because it can not be known. It cannot be known because it cannot be received as it is even in part. If however our input is merely limited, if we only intake part of it at any given time, if we're dealing with constriction as opposed to obstruction, then the actual state of the material can be understood as the sum of the input increases in time.

To say that humans have limited perception, then, is not to require that their perceiving obstructs what is being perceived. Therefore, I do not see how the concept of a so-called inaccessible objective is actually required by human perspective being presently incomplete. It doesn't look like it follows, in my opinion. I have to ask what substantiates this idea in the first place.

[vkut79]

The reason I raise this distinction is because it is critically salient to the question of what can be understood about the objective source of the input and what cannot. If we are looking at a so-called objective reality through tinted glasses, if our input is filtered, if it is qualitatively degraded, if entire spectrums of it are fundamentally blocked, then nothing about the actual state of that material can be understood because it can not be known. It cannot be known because it cannot be received as it is even in part. If however our input is merely limited, if we only intake part of it at any given time, if we're dealing with constriction as opposed to obstruction, then the actual state of the material can be understood as the sum of the input increases in time.

I do believe that our input is "qualitatively degraded". That is what I meant to argue in my previous posts. It seems to me that this scenario is almost certainly the case given how our human consciousness is constructed. If you accept the idea that our consciousness arises as the product of a certain kind of activity of our brain, a finite material structure, there is nothing that suggests to me that our brains would produce a consciousness that has full access to knowing objective reality.

If we were to produce a computer that had all of the capabilities of the human brain, along with sentience and consciousness (which I think is hypothetically possible given sufficiently advanced computer/robotics technology - let me know if you disagree with this) - one whose intelligence was virtually indistinguishable from that of a real human - it would follow that that computer would have just as much access to knowledge of objective reality as we would. Now clearly you wouldn't say that a less advanced intelligent computer, such as one who only plays chess would have unfiltered access to objective reality. That computer could only know and learn about chess, and no other aspect of objective reality. If we then proceeded to expand the intellectual capabilities of that robot, it would gradually learn more about objective reality, depending on what we enable it to learn about. We could teach it to distinguish between colors, then shapes, then maybe use advanced forms of reasoning, etc. Eventually we could have that computer reach the intellectual level of a human. Once it gets there, does it somehow reach the pinnacle of access to objective reality? Does it have an unobstructed view of how real objective reality is? I can think of no reason why we could make a claim like that. And if we are no different from that computer in our ability to access objective reality (since the intellectual faculties are the same), then it follows that there is no reason to think that we can have an unobstructed view of real objective reality.

Our consciousness, along with our ability to perceive and reason, is defined by a finite material structure - the brain. Not only that, but the brain never evolved for the purpose of understanding objective reality, it evolved for the purpose of understanding our particular environment for the reason of survival and reproduction. Also, chemical change in the brain or physical damage to the brain can fundamentally change how we experience reality (through drugs for example). I would argue that we exist (our consciousness, that is) in a different reality (from our POV during the experience- this is the only POV that matters) when we are under the influence of drugs. In fact the change to the brain by a single drug is incredibly tiny in the context of all of the complex functions of the brain as a whole. A significant change to the brain could hypothetically turn our perception and understanding of the world completely upside down. One might argue that is simply because our brain is impaired and we cannot perceive/reason correctly. Who is the judge of whether or not we perceive or reason correctly? What is so different from a drug-influenced brain and a normally-functioning brain, besides that one is acting in the way that it does most of the time and the other is not? Both realities are valid ones from a neutral perspective. If both realities are valid, yet contradictory, then it cannot be said that one provides the "correct" view of objective reality and the other does not. They are both obstructed, limited, relative views of the same objective reality - neither grants unfiltered access to the real objective reality.

[mabts]

To be honest, I didn't read most of these posts, but considering philosophy is my expertise, I'd like to chime in ever so slightly.

Lights, you are arguing for Kant's transcendental idealism from what I've seen...I'm not sure if you are consciously aware of this or if you came to similar conclusions on your own.

While the Critique of Pure Reason is quite thorough and complicated, it can be summed up pretty easily. Our brain orders the world in space/time/causality. To have discursive experience, experience where we can differentiate and make sense of things in the way that we do, we have to live in a world where we cognitively order it in space/time/causality. This is not to say that our experience of the world we take in is fake or doesn't matter or is completely idealistic etc. -- it's just saying a world based on space/time/causality is the only world we can understand and experience because we order it in this way a priori.

What I think Lights is saying, but I haven't followed the discussion thoroughly enough, is that there may be things in themselves outside of space/time/causality. But, by virtue of the fact that we order things in space/time/causality, we can never have accurate knowledge of the things in themselves. So, in essence, the desire for metaphysical knowledge is ultimately fruitless.

Two things I want to comment on Kant's/Lights' view:
1. There doesn't necessarily have to be things in themselves. The things in themselves and the objective world of space/time/causality may just be one in the same -- there is no actual distinction. But, by virtue of the way we order things in space/time/causality, we could never gain knowledge into such a definitive truth anyway.

2. Randian Objectivism is not necessarily incompatible with Kant's Transcendental Idealism. An objectivist could just say there may be things in themselves outside of space/time/causality, but, as Kant points out, it is impossible for us to ever have knowledge of these things. The discursive experience we all have is the same. We all order things in space/time/causality and all have the same discursive experience. Therefore, there is an objective world open to all where events are not subjective but all determined due to the laws of our cognition.

[vkut79]

Agreed, the two philosophies are not necessarily incompatible. Its a matter of how you define "reality", whether it is our "discursive" reality or "things in themselves". I actually referred to Kant's Transcendental Idealism a while back in this discussion - both Lights and I were arguing along the lines of his perspective, but I think you clarified some things that we might have not explained so well.

[Lights]

To be honest, I didn't read most of these posts, but considering philosophy is my expertise, I'd like to chime in ever so slightly.

Lights, you are arguing for Kant's transcendental idealism from what I've seen...I'm not sure if you are consciously aware of this or if you came to similar conclusions on your own.

I was not aware of it. I actually came at it from a Taoist perspective. I have a tremendous amount of difficulty when it comes to reading and comprehending Kant's writing. I was astonished that people kept bringing him up.

While the Critique of Pure Reason is quite thorough and complicated, it can be summed up pretty easily. Our brain orders the world in space/time/causality. To have discursive experience, experience where we can differentiate and make sense of things in the way that we do, we have to live in a world where we cognitively order it in space/time/causality. This is not to say that our experience of the world we take in is fake or doesn't matter or is completely idealistic etc. -- it's just saying a world based on space/time/causality is the only world we can understand and experience because we order it in this way a priori.

What I think Lights is saying, but I haven't followed the discussion thoroughly enough, is that there may be things in themselves outside of space/time/causality. But, by virtue of the fact that we order things in space/time/causality, we can never have accurate knowledge of the things in themselves. So, in essence, the desire for metaphysical knowledge is ultimately fruitless.

That sounds exactly like what I was saying.

1. There doesn't necessarily have to be things in themselves. The things in themselves and the objective world of space/time/causality may just be one in the same -- there is no actual distinction. But, by virtue of the way we order things in space/time/causality, we could never gain knowledge into such a definitive truth anyway.

I agree.

2. Randian Objectivism is not necessarily incompatible with Kant's Transcendental Idealism. An objectivist could just say there may be things in themselves outside of space/time/causality, but, as Kant points out, it is impossible for us to ever have knowledge of these things. The discursive experience we all have is the same. We all order things in space/time/causality and all have the same discursive experience. Therefore, there is an objective world open to all where events are not subjective but all determined due to the laws of our cognition.

Ethics is where things get messy when discussing these philosophies. But I certainly can't disagree with your reasoning.


I agree with vkut. You clarified things very well. :thumbsup:

[prometheus]

2. Randian Objectivism is not necessarily incompatible with Kant's Transcendental Idealism. An objectivist could just say there may be things in themselves outside of space/time/causality, but, as Kant points out, it is impossible for us to ever have knowledge of these things. The discursive experience we all have is the same. We all order things in space/time/causality and all have the same discursive experience. Therefore, there is an objective world open to all where events are not subjective but all determined due to the laws of our cognition.

Not at all I'm a transcendentalist (though, of the Emersonian school) and an (loosely) Objectivist.

Since this thread is based on Ayn, I think this quote is appropriate.

Rand's philosophical system, Objectivism, encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. While there have been "objectivist" theories in the past, Rand's Objectivism uses the term in a new way: it treats knowledge and values as neither subjective, nor intrinsic in existence (the traditional meaning of "objective") but rather as the factual identification, by Man's mind, of what exists.

[blueback]

I think it just comes down to practicality. If you want truth, just go out and test it. Either the universe is what it is, or it isn't. If it is, then you just have to keep testing to know truth. If it isn't, then nothing you do will ever matter.

Since every indication is that the universe is what it is, then we probably won't ever know if it really isn't. So, the practical thing to do is act like the universe is, until someone somehow proves that it isn't. Since I'm not convinced that a person ever could prove that the universe isn't, any argument based on that assumption can be dismissed immediately.

[Lights]

I think it just comes down to practicality. If you want truth, just go out and test it. Either the universe is what it is, or it isn't. If it is, then you just have to keep testing to know truth. If it isn't, then nothing you do will ever matter.

Since every indication is that the universe is what it is, then we probably won't ever know if it really isn't. So, the practical thing to do is act like the universe is, until someone somehow proves that it isn't. Since I'm not convinced that a person ever could prove that the universe isn't, any argument based on that assumption can be dismissed immediately.

Good argument. Now how do you go about testing morals and ethics?

[blueback]

Well, first you have to define them. For example; in obectivism a good working definition of morality is anything which affects life. So, if something inhibits life it would be immoral and if something supports life it would be moral. Of course, the definition has to be more specific than that, but I think you get the idea.

All you have to do once you have your definition is go out into the world and start acting consistent with it. If you find that things get better than you probably defined morality well, or at least well suited to the situation you tested it in. Of course, you have to accept the fact that most people will probably disagree with you on what is good, and will work against you.

[NephilimAzrael]

Why objectivism is a flawed philosophy (popularized in US by a literary talent who lacked scientific insight and training, and was, most likely, influenced by the emotional baggage of her traumatic childhood experiences)? Consider the attribution theory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the scientific evidence confirming the existence of the fundamental attribution error. Perhaps, second guessing one's own judgments and critically assessing them for subjective interpretations is not a bad idea after all :)

You kidding? Attribution theory is a flaw to flawed thought. It consumes itself.

[Monte314]

Why objectivism is a flawed philosophy (popularized in US by a literary talent who lacked scientific insight and training, and was, most likely, influenced by the emotional baggage of her traumatic childhood experiences)? Consider the attribution theory (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the scientific evidence confirming the existence of the fundamental attribution error. Perhaps, second guessing one's own judgments and critically assessing them for subjective interpretations is not a bad idea after all :)

Yes, Ayn Rand is totally unworthy of the place given her, and Attribution Theory has elements that make sense.

[blueback]

Yes, Ayn Rand is totally unworthy of the place given her, and Attribution Theory has elements that make sense.
I would expect a person who bases their life on faith (specifically in God) to dislike objectivism. However, I'm not sure that Ayn Rand has been given much of a "place." Which, by the way, is a beautifully ambiguous word.

It is one thing to rebutt objectivism; it is another thing entirely to attack the person who invented it. In my experience, Ayn Rand is popular among a very small crowd, and actually seems to be known more as "that author that no one likes" than "that author that is really popular." It seems silly to attack her as being unworthy of the recognition she got for her ideas. She wasn't famous for anything more than thinking. Therefore, what fame she has is directly related to other people's feeling that her ideas are worth discussing.

The "place" she was "given" is entirely the result of other people thinking her ideas were worthy of recognition. What is more worthy than that?

[zibber]

Ayn Rand is popular among a very small crowd, and actually seems to be known more as "that author that no one likes" than "that author that is really popular."

Isn't she the libertarian posterwoman? Staunch libertarians are everywhere, in my experience, it's like the hip thing to be.

[stasis]

Isn't she the libertarian posterwoman? Staunch libertarians are everywhere, in my experience, it's like the hip thing to be.
Rand despised and categorically opposed libertarianism. But yeah, they seem to like her picture.