Intrinsic Value

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

  1. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Only one of them is an opening. The other is closed. I wasn't referring to that one, though it was the cat's pajamas in helping make a context.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Which checks?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    You have been warned.

    Seriously, isn't that what I've been on about? If you'd like to discuss a specific instance....

    (oh and on your last post to enmos I thought you boiled it down perfectly in your last sentence)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    It's definitely one of the more obvious ones.
  8. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Yes. I would even venture to go so far to as say that those what-if's are verbal representations of or pointers to underlying panic, concern, worry, hopelessness etc.

    I do not believe there is such a thing as "neutral" or "disinterested" engagement in intellectual discussion.

    However -

    A somewhat personally disengaged, "objective" form of dicussion is sometimes necessary to address some issues, especially when it comes to scratching the surface.
  9. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    I agree. Or as another take. Sometimes the 'what ifs' can serve as a way to freeze onself.

    It's not personally disengaged or even "objective" - I'd ask what the quotes mean, but I, shall we say, sympathize with what our options for word choice sometimes are - forms of discussion I find strange. It's when one takes a position, not simply to explore,
    as if one must (to 'fit' with science or religion)
    as if one should (to 'fit' with morality)
    as if there was no other position
    as if it was obvious

    when it does not seem like any of these really apply to the person taking the position. Perhaps even in the very style they present the idea, the tone....perhaps in the sentences around gets the distinct impression they really believe something else and this foray seems to be serving some other unstated or perhaps unknown purpose.

    I realize this is all hard to recognize and certainly prove. And it is nothing I want to suggest as a new form of accusation one can make.

    But I do get this feeling sometimes that the conversation is twisted as if there was some sort of expert or authority present and we must conform our speech - and perhaps even our personalities - to not upset this authority.

    Not unlike, I suppose, coded conversations once went on between slightly freer thinkers when the priest or deacon walked by.

    Except here the deacons are in our own minds.

    My impression that it is better, at least sometimes, to shift the conversation towards the actual beliefs and not get into a tizzy - however disengaged and objective the conversation may seem - about beliefs that neither party really has.

    A quagmire, no doubt, in practical terms, but I want to acknowledge the pattern (in general) nonetheless.
  10. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member


    Exactly. I find that the meta-communication aspect is often the more important one and gives far more useful insights than the actual communication itself.

    And this forum is particularly suited for exploring this, because it is somewhere between mere conversationalism and professional discussion.

    Of course. But such does require some competence, some experience, some feeling comfortable with looking into that aspect of communication.
    Not everyone has this sort of experience or feels comfortable to do this. - For there migth be monsters lurking underneath that one has no idea how to tame, so it's best leaving them be, for the time being.

    You'll find there are several people here who share this view.
    Welcome to Sciforums.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Gustav Banned Banned

    it is agreement not approval
    you project past attitudes
    lets move on

    consideration and irrelevancy do not discount the possibility. nor does it have any bearing on the question posed. it is instead an indication of your disposition or simply a preferred pov in general or one adopted for a specific scenario

    ja or nein?

    could the matrix be the actual state of affairs. is it a fucking possibility?
    is your apparent prevarication intentional or just a misunderstanding?

    the matrix is as it was depicted in neo's world. the subjective reality was faked. a software program. enlightenment thru disconnection resulting in our present status....another subjective reality that is discounted only thru the adoption of an axiom based on ______________?
  12. Gustav Banned Banned


    i am the neediest fuck in sci
    do an analysis of i an i
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    enmos & wes

    i see waffling. on your part or in my brain

    a simple question....the entities known as enmos/wes
    the context is the mind/body dichotomy
    expound on identity in relation to the fucking context provided

    lemme do me

    i am a thingy in a symbiotic relationship with a homo sapien
    indications are i can break this relationship. this claim is based on the notion that i have a implicit notion of this state of being. that and references in lit. not much but occam is with me on this

    the mind without body appears to be one that experiences. i cannot elaborate any further as this thingy would then be compromised by the body and the tools of its mode of existence. these tools refer to the processes required to post this content.
    indulge please. the semantics so far boggles my feeble mind
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    if you don't want me to thank you and say stupid shit, don't tell me something I said was excellent. i'm fairly predictable i'd think to the likes of you.

    of course not.

    uhm, you said
    , which is where the comment is relavant.

    That it is a possibility that cannot be discounted renders it pertinent to contexts in which models of reality are being modelled/questioned. So if the context comes up, I give props to the notion so much so that my models try to shape themselves to allow for such a possiblity... though again I'd say that practically, it's irrelevant unless some evidence is introduced that I can accept as reason to pursue it.

    Sure, or any of a gajillion variants. Perhaps we're a science experiment of a fourth grader or something.

    no it's that I haven't seen anything in my experience that could possibly support the idea as a "fact of life". worse and hence my statement of irrelevance - if it were properly implemented (in real matrix style) there could be no way to know, ever. even worse than that is that our entire "is" could be like I said, a science experiment in virtual space for all we know - and since we are wholly contained within that space, it would effectively be the whole of our reality... so we could not by definition be able to determine our actual status in the larger system because by design we are contrained to our "virtual universe" in the eyes of the experimentor which to us is just "our universe".

    i don't understand "enlightenment through disconnection resulting in our current status". Explain.
  15. Gustav Banned Banned

    neo's notions of reality were dependent on him being hooked up to the machinery. objective reality was depicted as being the one experienced when disconnected from the hookup.

    that is what passed for enlightenment aka nirvana aka the actual state of a affairs in neo's world

    we of course know that this supposedly objective reality as presented in the movie is actually a subjective one but obviously that was not a level or depth explored in the script.
  16. Gustav Banned Banned


    what does qm imply? what effect does it have, if any, on your philosophies?
    i come full circle, back to where i started from, everything undone

    /woe is me
  17. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    extra dimensions I think. could be holographic stuff though, can't be sure.

    well it's partially underlying my assertion of a spatial dimension in which meaning exists.
  18. Gustav Banned Banned

    "meaning" meaning?

    sorry, couldn't resist
    what then of that which this "meaning" means something?
    where does this reside?
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Well, I think to "to which" is comprised of meaning and the physical components that participate in its coming to pass. Ultimately you're asking me "what is this self you define" I suppose.

    Well, it is what it is, what i experience. Via awareness and my apparent function: "to derive meaning from this experience that shapes how meaning is shaped as time progresses", I am. Apparently since I am, and I generate meaning via an instanced function of "don't die oh and hey, fuck stuff if you can" that has freedom in the abstract - and given my percieved circumstance - I value stuff. It would appear that the brain and body is a "machine" if you will "entity" perhaps, that create/allow/is the conditions that I've attempted to describe.
  20. Gustav Banned Banned

    i say!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    In line with sowhatifit'sdark's earlier points on the meta-communicative aspects of discussion -

    We could just grab the bull by the horns and instead of wondering about the matrix, focus flat out on the issue of how to deal with uncertainty.
    Because it seems to me that this is what underlies this discussion about the matrix and the subjective vs. objective problems.
  22. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    Yes, metacommunication. I was so focused on what I saw as parallel communications from a single person, I hadn't realized that I was metacommunicating. In fact right now I can feel my mind shifting between experiencing the communication as about 'things' - ie. parallel entities in a mind - and experiencing it as metacommunication.

    I'm not really capable of something that would be professional communication alone, so that's a good thing.

    Monsters who have as much claim to being me as any other phenomena. I can but welcome them. But I do understand your point.

    Thank you.
  23. sowhatifit'sdark Valued Senior Member

    I need help here. Do you mean rastafarianism?
    I need a bridge!

Share This Page