Intrinsic Value

[Enmos]

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.

No, I mean how exactly would you define it ?

I cannot prove an objective reality. I have to infer it based upon my assumption of self.

Sure you can, all you have to prove is that subjectivity exists.
If subjectivity exists then objectivity exist, and so objective reality.

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.

I understand perspective (as in perception I presume ?), but I can't quite place why you also named space and time..

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).

I agree with the 'part of' part.
Actually it's objective reality trying to describe itself by using a model (subjective reality) that is 'designed' for something entirely different (survival of living creatures). I had to anthropomorphize objective reality there :shrug:

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.

What do you mean when you say 'we' ?
'We' are part of objective reality too, we are not separate.

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.

I agree.

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).

Maybe but objective reality does exist as much as subjectivity does.

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.

What if that route is a dead end ? I don't see why can't frame my comments as such :shrug:
Don't you agree with the fact that our thoughts, emotions etc are functions of our brain ?

Meaning is the only reality I can know.

Wes, didn't you say at the beginning of this thread that intrinsic value did not exist ? How then do you suggest that intrinsic meaning exists when intrinsic value does not ? :shrug:

 

[Enmos]

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?

Exactly my view

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

You did it again. You're framing your comments as if you aren't you...

Great to read that sentence opening. Absolutely great.
I see this as a very strange tendency, especially in philosophical discussions.

 

[Enmos]

Great to read that sentence opening. Absolutely great.
I see this as a very strange tendency, especially in philosophical discussions.

Why is it strange ?

 

[Gustav]

sarcasm

 

[Enmos]

sarcasm

What is ?

Edit: Oh heh.. I think I get it. Somebody should kill sarcasm

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Why is it strange ?

It's a good question, Enmos, and I feel I am not actually smart enough to describe what I mean. Perhaps the person I quoted above can help.

I have noticed a tendency to present comments that could begin with

'but what if I believed ________________'

and the underlying tone seems to be panic, concern, worry, hopelessness (or any of these even in the mildest of forms).

But then if it is hypothetical, this belief, in relation to the speaker/writer, why the panic, concern, etc.

Wesmorris seemed to respond by accepting the subjectivity/objectivity split and saying that you don't have to go there.

For me, I wonder about the underlying emotion and the imagining one's way into a belief
as if one should?
as if one did not really have that belief already? (maybe this is the source of the underlying feelings?)

I will try to look for more examples. I think on the atheism is a belief thread I thought I picked up something similar. I thought, perhaps, that we were all going to focus on this word atheism, which does not mean that the atheist believes there is no God. But then this would be an odd focus for the discussion if some, many, most of the atheists participating in the discussion believe there is no God.

It's like there is a shift away from where we are at to have this other more objective (maybe?) conversation, rather than one that actually fits us better. We the individuals involved, right here.

 

[Enmos]

It's a good question, Enmos, and I feel I am not actually smart enough to describe what I mean. Perhaps the person I quoted above can help.

I have noticed a tendency to present comments that could begin with

'but what if I believed ________________'

and the underlying tone seems to be panic, concern, worry, hopelessness (or any of these even in the mildest of forms).

But then if it is hypothetical, this belief, in relation to the speaker/writer, why the panic, concern, etc.

Wesmorris seemed to respond by accepting the subjectivity/objectivity split and saying that you don't have to go there.

For me, I wonder about the underlying emotion and the imagining one's way into a belief
as if one should?
as if one did not really have that belief already? (maybe this is the source of the underlying feelings?)

I will try to look for more examples. I think on the atheism is a belief thread I thought I picked up something similar. I thought, perhaps, that we were all going to focus on this word atheism, which does not mean that the atheist believes there is no God. But then this would be an odd focus for the discussion if some, many, most of the atheists participating in the discussion believe there is no God.

It's like there is a shift away from where we are at to have this other more objective (maybe?) conversation, rather than one that actually fits us better. We the individuals involved, right here.

- I don't really see what atheism has to do with anything.
- I have no underlying emotional problems to leads me to think about this subject.
- We have to respect the subject at hand though, ideas about this subject are not easily written down in words.
- Lastly, I really don't see how this
"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."
is me 'framing my comments as if I wasn't me, as if I am some objective element that can wholly neutralize itself.'
How did I neutralize myself to the point that I can no longer speak about my observations ? How did I frame my comment so that it seems like I am talking about myself as if I wasn't me ?

 

[superluminal]

OK. I looked at several definitions of intrinsic.

It seems that intrinsic means some aspect of a thing that is internal or otherwise complete unto itself.

An example is the intrinsic brightness of a star (no matter what it appears to be from a distance), or the intrinsic nature of a cat to hunt. Something that is an objectively verifiable property.

But there are many definitions that link intrinsic and value.

Now, it may just be me, but the very act of "assigning" value (a purely subjective activity imo) negates the concept of intrinsic-ness D). That being some objectively verifiable inherent attribute of a thing.

I can't think of any way to objectify "value", therefore, how can it be an intrinsic property of anything?

:shrug:

 

[wesmorris]

Great to read that sentence opening. Absolutely great.
I see this as a very strange tendency, especially in philosophical discussions.

But that's two sentences.....

 

[wesmorris]

No, I mean how exactly would you define it ?

Subjective perspective: The point of view of an entity that is self-aware.

Enough?

Sure you can, all you have to prove is that subjectivity exists.

No, it's an axiom. Assuming self -> subjective perspective. If however, you need proof - I think that we have to ask each other what we mean fairly well proves it.

If subjectivity exists then objectivity exist, and so objective reality.

This is a smidge tricky, because subjective perspectives exist and can be proven subjectively, with no requirement for objectivity whatsoever - the whole "you're my hallucination that I can't control" gambit. Of course it seems pretty stupid, but since we have no objective means by which to prove otherwise (given the unknowable status of the objective)... well anyway. So it does not follow directly that your subjective perspective objectively exists. However it would seem that something that seems to be must exist in some medium, so much so in fact that I can see no other sensible alternative, so I presume it to be so, but allow that of course it could be that I'm an idiot.

I understand perspective (as in perception I presume ?), but I can't quite place why you also named space and time..

Well perspective is also inclusive of the "angle from which you view", angle being both literal and figurative there.

I agree with the 'part of' part.
Actually it's objective reality trying to describe itself by using a model (subjective reality) that is 'designed' for something entirely different (survival of living creatures). I had to anthropomorphize objective reality there :shrug:

OMG, you just endorsed intelligent design? Lol. I doubt that's your intention so I'll stop. Again here though, you're trying to project yourself into a perspective that can't have a perspective. If you agree that objective reality is "unknowable", then your line of reasoning here contradicts that.

What do you mean when you say 'we' ?
'We' are part of objective reality too, we are not separate.

Humans, beings, minds, that kind of "we". Well it would certainly seem that we're part of objective reality, sure. More pertinent to the quote however, we are the part that is subjective... this has a lot of ramifications. This does indeed "separate us" to some extent from "the physical world", which it seems that you're refering to as "objective reality" here. It means "hey, big universe in which I am a single perspective". If we believe the identity, then Self = Self <> [/i]objective reality[/i]. (it's a subset)

Maybe but objective reality does exist as much as subjectivity does.

Well maybe sure. It would seem necessary that it does. In fact it would seem that there could be no subjectivity without an objective medium in which it can exist. Unfortunately though, we - as the subjective - have no recourse (if we're to be honest) but to put it all in terms of "how it seems to us". That we might insist that how it seems to us is how it is... well that's pretending to be god.

What if that route is a dead end ? I don't see why can't frame my comments as such :shrug:

You can do whatever you want. I just don't think you can frame things like that and be truly honest and consistent. Just my opinion of course. Only you could prove it to you.

Don't you agree with the fact that our thoughts, emotions etc are functions of our brain ?

Yes, sort of - mostly. I actually suspect that they are part of phyics that is missing though, in that some aspect of the universe allows for them and isn't accounted for by science as we know it. The brain creates conditions under which meaning is generated or accessed, however that works. I think there are properties of this "abstract space" (in which meaning can exist) that come to play in thoughts, emotions, etc... thought could imply that "the brain" isn't the only component of existence that shapes our thoughts, emotions, etc. But I think a brain definately seems to be a required component, in that it creates the conditions for all of that thinking/emotional stuff to happen.

Wes, didn't you say at the beginning of this thread that intrinsic value did not exist ?

I did.

How then do you suggest that intrinsic meaning exists when intrinsic value does not ? :shrug:

Because I accepted greenburg's correction as to the one exception that makes sense to me. Things are intrinsically meaningful therefore, intrinsically valuable - to things that intrinsically create meaning and value.






Can you think all of this through and simultaneously avoid the temptation to "put yourself in god's position", as you do when you make claims as to "how objective reality sees things"? I'm not sure I can, but I'm trying.

 

[wesmorris]

"Wesmorris seemed to respond by accepting the subjectivity/objectivity split and saying that you don't have to go there."

I think I'm more callous actually, and think it "wrong to go there", as it fails the consistency checks in my opinion.

 

[wesmorris]

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.

I doubt it's the first one.

 

[wesmorris]

Now, it may just be me, but the very act of "assigning" value (a purely subjective activity imo) negates the concept of intrinsic-ness D).

Except in the act thereof.

That being some objectively verifiable inherent attribute of a thing.

We could say however, that thing that value things exist, and therefore that value exists in them is intrinsic... sort of a backwards way to intrinsic value but I think worthy of serious consideration.

I can't think of any way to objectify "value", therefore, how can it be an intrinsic property of anything?

If and only if that thing values things.

:shrug:

Beat me to it.

 

[Gustav]

not sarcasm

/dissapointed

 

[Gustav]

i say
rather excellent, wes
thing here is while it is prudent to acknowledge the possibility of a matrix type reality, assigning anything more than minuscule probability could find the usual suspects banging on your front door. ja, the men in white coats armed with straitjackets.

you have been warned

/kowtow

oh
values are assigned.
criteria= associations (past or present) and aesthetics by way of disposition and acquisition of whatnot

probably more but most certainly not your "backward" thingy
that is, unless you expound in a more meaningful way

 

[Gustav]

alternate tp title....... likes and dislikes

ja?
nein?

 

[wesmorris]

i say
rather excellent, wes

ty

i r smrt.

thing here is while it is prudent to acknowledge the possibility of a matrix type reality, assigning anything more than minuscule probability could find the usual suspects banging on your front door.

Oh I don't really consider the possiblity at all. It's just a decent thought excercise to demonstrate relationships and stuff that are pertinent to the related materials and whatnot. It's basically to demonstrate the circle thingy I told you about before (self, perception, tao).

Actually I'd argue at length that practically the whole matrix thing is irrelevant.

ja, the men in white coats armed with straitjackets.

you have been warned

SO many times.

/kowtow

oh
values are assigned.

you sort of switched contexts there but forgot to provide the new context.

criteria= associations (past or present) and aesthetics by way of disposition and acquisition of whatnot

criteria of value assignment?

probably more but most certainly not your "backward" thingy

that backwards thingy was totally legit. if we know that things value things, we know there is value inherent in those things, not specifically what the value is. wasn't discussing how value is developed, as I think there is consensus on that it exists - and that's all that's necessary for the therefore to fit n shit.

I call it backwards because usually if I were to consider the notion of intrinsic value, it'd be a question of {here is a thing: this thing has objective value: here is what the objective value is} - (which I don' think is possible), rather than {here is a thing: the thing values things} - (which I think is a feasible alternative idea that that doesn't violate the combination of words "intrinsic value"), as I've said I think suffices to establish intrinsic value in like I said, a sort of backwards way that isn't the same thing I usually think of when I think of it. Myah see.

that unless you expound in a more meaningful way

dunno what that meant to you. perhaps it will suffice?

 

[wesmorris]

alternate tp title....... likes and dislikes

ja?
nein?

No.

Rephrased:

Why I think my likes are probably better than your likes, but I might be a tard, but I'll argue with you forever to convince you I'm not because I'm a tard.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

We have to respect the subject at hand though

Here is someone, it seems, telling me what we 'should do'.

and here is someone telling me (it seems)

"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."
is me 'framing my comments as if I wasn't me, as if I am some objective element that can wholly neutralize itself.'
How did I neutralize myself to the point that I can no longer speak about my observations ? How did I frame my comment so that it seems like I am talking about myself as if I wasn't me ?

that we are merely biochemical reactions (objectively seen).

It seems to me this neutralizes you. Literally. It makes everything neutral. Certainly biochemical reactions have no onus on them to respect anything. That you can afterward move back out of this way of looking at yourself does not take away from what happened - perhaps only on screen - in that moment.

(perhaps I did project my feelings onto your statement. Sorry. If I think of everything as completely meaningless I find it upsetting.)

As far as talking about yourself as if you are not you:
"Nothing matters."
"Please answer my question and try to make a bit more sense this time."
Seem an uneasy fit. I am likely to identify you as the one sending the second message and not really believing the first is what you believe though perhaps you are entertaining it. This may seem unfair, but from where I sit, it is the latter person I will deal with the vast majority of the time. This one with desires and interests and assumptions of value and preferences. That is the person I come in contact with, even in this impoverished medium.

I can certainly see how it might be disrespectful to say this is you and this is not.

But then the part of you that thinks we are organic matter and everything is meaningless: how can it object to my acting like the batch of organic matter I am.