Intrinsic Value

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wesmorris, Dec 7, 2007.

  1. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    kinda irrelevant...ipk that is
    i find utility thus....

    looking at website i see.....


    6. Conclusive remarks ( but not the final)

    - Every, even most abstract concepts have been constructed bottom-up basing on human experience but therefore their applications have to be done top-down in the real-world abstracion hierarchy.

    - Notions of abstract concepts are based on human socio-cognitive consensus concentrated around of a "shared utility". It is also valid for the previously discussed concepts, as meta-ontology.
    For example, is it possible to assume arbitrarily that meta-ontology is an open continuously growing set of axioms (?)


    you dismissed as saying we could be morons (two players) ignoring the fact that a consensus require most to agree

    so site wins, you lose
    no one else cared enough to comment so i get feedback elsewhere
    no matter how right i think i am, validation is a must since delusion is always a possibilty
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Yes ... the mode of dicsussions here is a lot different than in some other philosophy forums.

    Sometimes, I wonder what's the use ... It's definitely interesting here, and discussions are more open, there is great versatility of input - which means more potential solutions to a problem. Which is good.

    But on the other hand -

    - this is a problem that can be dealt with rather easily if participants keep to agreed standards and definitions; philosophical lingo isn't, after all, one's own invention, it's something we have picked up in schooling, books, etc.

    But if everyone has their own specific definitions of terms, communication becomes difficult and instead of being aimed at resolving a problem, its main aim becomes to understand each other at all.
    I'm afraid not much can get done that way.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    describe the aspects of knowledge that are held to be concealed yet present in any given object that is the focus of one's perception. what is it you seek of the object that is before you? would you distinguish b/w an abstraction situated in some apparent mental space and the one localized in this ...space time shit

    what are perceptions and how do we perceive? indulge. do you find us lacking. if so, what do you suggest? can we compensate? have we been know to do so?
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    do any here seek to be one with nature? to be that rock. maybe even.. to know god in all his frikkin glory is to be god. to be one! the only fucking one!
     
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    KNOW THYSELF!

    /pukes
     
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Meaning physical reality is just another subjective reality modeled after objective reality.. imperfect. Like subjective reality of the mind physical reality is a representation of objective reality. But unlike the subjective reality of the mind, physical reality strives to become one with objective reality.
    For this discussion however I don't think the two can be realistically distinguished.

    Edit: I reconsidered. The two are as different as day and night.
    I just read you extensive explanation in post 154, it clarifies a lot. Thanks

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I need to know some things from you though.
    - How exactly do you view subjective reality ?
    - Physical reality is how physics see reality ?

    This is getting quite complicated, but I think I'm starting to see a feasible model breaking through.
    What you said about subjective reality being a part of objective reality got me thinking. I disagree with that somewhat.
    The way I see it is that there is one reality, objective reality. Subjective reality and physical reality are in fact nothing more than models conceived by us to describe objective reality. They are not a reality in the sense of objective reality, they are only realities to us (especially subjective reality).
    - Subjective reality is a subconsciously fabricated and filtered practical model of objective reality, of the brain.
    - Physical reality is scientific way of looking at objective reality and strives to describe objective reality perfectly, unlike subjective reality. Also unlike subjective reality, physical reality is not filtered or subconsciously fabricated, but fabricated through measurements and tests. It is merely incomplete and, although not directly filtered, it is probably also 'colored' by subjective reality.

    Obviously, both subjective reality and physical reality need to have a place in objective reality. But their place is nothing more than meaningless (objectively seen) biochemical reactions taking place in some mass of organic matter.

    Your thoughts ?
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2007
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    citation for the alleged ncc please
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Citation ? I made that all up lol :shrug:
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    pardon
    knee jerk reaction
    brain on permanent vacation
     
  13. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Not... really.
    Beethoven's 5th is of no consequence to the vast majority of organisms on earth. It hasn't ANY value; we have to be there to assign it value. And, see as Beethoven's 5th has little way of ascribing itself value, then yeah, no intrinsic value.

    All life, though, has intrinsic value, since it all values itself, and tries to survive.
     
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    ja
    i dont help much either
    my recalcitrance is syntax tho
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Something like 'I think therefor I am' ?
    The overwhelming majority of life on earth doesn't give a shit about us humans. And a disappointingly great number of people don't give a shit about life other than human life.
    Life, in itself, has no intrinsic value. Do you squash mosquitoes ?
     
  16. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    Squashing (or not!) any number of mosquitoes, or humans for that matter, has no bearing on the value of those life forms. Life adds value through its progeny. Survival is valuable to life.
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    ..to life

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    exactly what it looks like from another's perspective, for one.

    Yes, perhaps mirror and reflection is the best analogy. Something like that. Perhaps plaster and mold. One is the impression of the thing, the other is the thing. There is no means by which to determine the exact difference in the two, because the impression is what it is. It can't be something else to ensure it's perfectly representative of "the thing itself". To me this basically means a consistent philosophy can only be assured when defined in terms of self, because "the impression" wholly engulfs self in a simple geometric representation of perspective. (basically a circle with self on the inside, "what is" on the outside and perception as the circle)

    perception is my input. i percieve, apparently through sensory stimulous and thinking.

    lacking what? perception?

    if you mean perception well yeah of course we are lacking, the most notable way is the opportunity cost of self, to not be other self, and thus be limited to one perspective (physically).

    well sure, all kinds of ways to try and verify this and that.

    telescopes, x-ray sensors, etc. etc. all seem of high utility, as the models developed from the data collected seem to offer repeatable results that allow us to tweak models to yield more apparent consistency.
     
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    I'm already nature, or I wouldn't exist.

    I cannot be the rock, I am me. That's the cost of playing.

    Yah, unbound ego. You're you. That you might think you're god is well, typical of humanity it would seem.
     
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Yes I think that's right, keeping in mind that "objective reality" is the "great unknowable IS", and physical reality is a model humans use to attempt to cope in our precarious circumstance. That we cannot ever know (in the absolute sense) what is, is again, the cost of getting in the game in the first place.


    You're welcome. Real communication is a tedious fucking process, and I appreciate your willingness to be thorough and bear with the stumbling blocks.

    Uhm... in my mind? Through my eyes? I feel it? Basically it's the sum of conceptual relationships in a mind, in action, percieving and doing its thing. It's "what seems to be". God is a part of subjective reality.

    Basically yeah. It's a model that is technically also subject to "subjective reality", as it must

    Yeah it gets tough, but you're a trooper I can tell.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    With you so far.

    Ok, but you're making statements about objective reality that assume you're taking a perspective that isn't you, which you can't do. What you can verify as you, is that there is definately a subjective reality. We can model from this that there is an objective reality in which we exist and can communicate. In doing so however, it's important IMO to ensure we remain consistent in the basis of our assumptions. I think I'm doing that by keeping things to "how they seem". I cannot prove an objective reality. I have to infer it based upon my assumption of self. Thus, it certainly seems there must be an objective reality in which we both exist, but our conduits to it are dissassociated by space, time and perspective.

    True, but fundamentally it's really all we have to work with.

    Untrue. Physical reality is part of subjective reality in that the only means to speak or "know" of it is through subjective reality. So it is subjective reality that attempts to describe objective reality to perfection (in the case that the subjective reality attempts science). It's my position however, that this is actually a misnomer. What we are really trying to do is to build models, etc., that apparently provide maximal utility to as many potential perspectives as possible. This isn't really saying anying about objective reality, only how we - perhaps even collectively - view it.

    Sort of true, which are all filtered through the senses and depedent upon the utility of the model in to which the data is fed in order to produce results. It's not "unlike subjective reality", we are all stuck in subjective reality. It's really more about method. Gnostics just claim knowledge, scientists use a "nuetral method" to gain it. Often though, scientists don't really understand the philosophy of science, and proclaim their results as "objectively true", or at some step between their results and our perception, it is translated similarly.

    Well subjective reality is the only reality we can speak of with authority, so we have to frame our models with respect to that limitation (at least IMO).

    You did it again. You're framing your comments as if you aren't you, as if you're some objective element that can wholly nuetralize itself. If you had successfully done so however, you couldnt' speak of your observations, for there would be no you to have observed them. Given that we are limited to subjective reality as the basis for being in something that seems broader, again I think the only honest route to comprehension is in keeping our comments consistent with the realization of the opportunity cost that is paid by existing, and knowing you exist.

    Meaning is the only reality I can know.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    "Life in itself, has no intrinsic value"

    But it does, and that's exactly where it is.
     
  22. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    How can anything have intrinsic value without reference to something else? And if it can't, then isn't it a completely relative and subjective idea?
     
  23. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Quite so.

    To wit -

    To posit as a basis:

    1. I exist. Therefore, the Universe exists.
    2. I exist. Therefore, the Universe exists as I say it does.


    - which is actually the position behind naive realism and objectivism, and many people have that sort of worldviews -,
    is, ultimately, a theistic statement.

    The Bible is the first manifesto of naive realism and objectivism.
     

Share This Page