Intrinsic Value

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

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

    Messages:
    3,811
    I was never implying there was anything "mystical" about it.
    I'll often consider something as indeterminate, but without mystical connotations.


    I'm sorry. I didn't think you'd take it this way. It then seemed you were in an easygoing mood and so such an exposition of the issue seemed in place.
    I could have also said "When person X is born, this person's mother and father call them ..."



    With your brief and special style, it is often difficult to figure out what mood you are in. And to me, it often seems you are quite easygoing about things. I'm not sure how to respond to you, in what mood or tone. I usually try to keep things as formal as possible to avoid misunderstanding. (And you then call me softie.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    )
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,811
    Then we seem to be on roundabout the same track.


    A conceptualization ...
    You have concepts of "Gustav" and of "Greenberg".


    Usually, such seems to be implied. But I am not sure it is necessary.


    Hence some of the problems with selfhood. It doesn't seem to have a referent in reality; even though in everyday life, we normally do as if it would.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    jesus christ, green
    you have said absolutely nothing except to come up with more assertions
    read prior assertions again. then my responses. respond
    focus!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    3,811
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Is that the best you can do ? :bugeye:
     
  9. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Now we're getting personal, huh?
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not at all, but it seems like you are being evasive. Can you please address the argument ?
     
  11. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    And would you agree then, that "self" is an assumption (though I believe one that it is inavoidable) we make such that we have a basis by which to relate to this unknowable "common medium" ('reality')? Just clearing this up then I'll move on to the rest of your post. "self" being basically "a repository for experience"?
     
  12. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    thats too bad. you two revitalized phil/sciforums. hope you stick around
     
  13. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    I was being brief. Sorry if I was too brief.

    What you appear to be doing with statements like these (and more in the Nothing really matters thread) -

    - is that you are effectively pushing yourself into a state of fear (or another uncomfortable state in which you are very receptive) that makes you believe some potential conclusions as if they would be certain. And then you proceed from there.

    You focus on all those ifs, this gives rise to fear (or another uncomfortable state in which you are very receptive) that endows those if-statements (potentialities) with a sense of certainty, and in the end you come out claiming "Nothing really matters" as if this were absolutely true and indisputable.

    If you want to claim "Nothing really matters", then I urge you to declare omniscience this instant, or give up the claim. It can't be made unless one claims omniscience, mind you.
     
  14. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Noted. Thanks.
     
  15. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I don't think it's even an assumption. I think it is a 'programmed' illusion.
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No problem

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I disagree though. I'm am not in any 'state of fear' or any other state that makes me 'very receptive' when I make these claims.
    How can any subjectivities exists in objective reality ? Obviously they can't, and if you agree with me that objective reality exists then things as value do not objectively exist. I really don't see how I'm going wrong here..

    Bottom line: Do you agree that there is a reality outside of our minds (objective reality) that we can only perceive through subjectivity (subjective reality) ?
    If yes, then how do you propose subjectivities (such as value) exist in this objective reality ?
    If no, can you explain why not ?
     
  17. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    If you would be perfectly fine, happy and content - would you still be wondering about these things?


    You are wrong inasmuch as you posit the existence of "objective reality" and "subjective reality" and the relationship between them with such absolute certainty.


    I neither agree nor disagree.


    I think karma is a much better way to explain these things.
    I realize though bringing in a notion like that is likely out of bounds for this discussion.
     
  18. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    "Programmed" by whom how?

    Are you ponting at some form of (intelligent) design, and eventually wondering about the origin of the Universe and all beings in it?
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well... why not ? I guess it just popped into my head one day :shrug:

    How so ?

    I don't understand..

    You realized right..lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, 'programmed' is between quotes. By 'programmed' I mean that it became so by means of evolution. It is 'programmed' into our DNA.
     
  21. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    This then, is where it gets tricky.

    I think that logically it has to be an assumption, even if you think it's a "programmed illusion", which I have a problem with.

    Logically, I think it has to be an assumption or there is no "self" through which one might realize this "programmed illusion". Unless perhaps you find this "programmed illusion" to be so nefarious that its programmed illusion programmed you to say you're experiencing a programmed illusion.

    More importantly to me though, is the term "illusion". This to me implies that the subject of the term is inherently FALSE, which by the evidence that we are communicating to some degree I would say is in and of itself, patently false. "self" is no illusion. It is real, or this conversation can just stop now as there's no reason to bother with illusions.

    I don't think that the term is at all applicable, so I'll probably keep talking, but if you really think it's an illusion - I don't think there's much basis to move forward. That's just me though, being all illusory and shit.
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What I mean is that the brain functions in such a way that it creates this 'illusion' of the self. All the biochemical processes at it's basis are of course real. This is a commonly accepted theory.
    The 'self' is a construct of the brain and very helpful in relating to oneself and others. I am convinced that at least all higher animals have a 'self'.

    Wes how can the 'self' be an assumption ? How to actively assume anything without a 'self' ? I mean, who is doing the assuming if the 'self' itself is an assumption ? It doesn't seem to follow..
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Which I mostly agree with, and have my own little spin on theory. My biggest complaint about all this is that I think researchers, etc.. in fact everyone I've ever spoken with is missing something that's right under their nose. I've started several threads on this over the years, and will direct when I have time to look it up. on the way out at the moment.

    A construct, yes. Part of reality, yes.

    Hard to say. I'd say they have "awareness" but some may lack the capacity for the particular abstract construct in question.

    This is simply a logical thing. One needs a basis.

    Exactly, which makes the assumption quite difficult to reject no?

    Sure it does. The assumption is the realization. I define this thing that's doing the assuming as self. That is the assumption.
     

Share This Page