Intrinsic Value

[greenberg]

read up on godel. there is nothing mystical about this limitation

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

you bravely do a number on me via dr spock and now confess ignorance. what foolhardy arrogance.

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. )

 

[greenberg]

self is a conceptualization.

Then we seem to be on roundabout the same track.

24/7? so there is no fucking "self" now? is that what you are implying? who the fuck is posting as "green"?

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

i mean, any perception requires a perceiver. does that not imply we must have a concept of this thing that perceives?

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

i have no reference points in my subjective experience.

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.

 

[Gustav]

jesus christ, green
you have said absolutely nothing except to come up with more assertions
read prior assertions again. then my responses. respond
focus!

 

[greenberg]

.

 

[Enmos]

If, then.

You are dealing with potentialities here, not with certainties.
The two shouldn't be confused.

Is that the best you can do ? :bugeye:

 

[greenberg]

Now we're getting personal, huh?

 

[Enmos]

Now we're getting personal, huh?

Not at all, but it seems like you are being evasive. Can you please address the argument ?

 

[wesmorris]

I concur. We can never know what objective reality is or what it is like. We can only know that it exists.
-The senses are imperfect.
-The brain interprets data from the senses so that it becomes useful and discards data it doesn't need or can't process.
-Person A cannot experience objective reality in exactly the same way as person B.
-The subjective reality of person A is not exactly the same as the subjective reality of person B.
-But the subjective reality of person A is similar to the subjective reality of person B.
-In this way one can sketch a picture of what objective reality must be like. But we can never know if it's accurate or not. We can also conclude from this that person A build his subjective reality on the same objective reality as person B did.
-Therefor objective reality exists and is 'how things really are' but is at the same time unknowable.

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"?

 

[Gustav]

No, he said he'd leave.

thats too bad. you two revitalized phil/sciforums. hope you stick around

 

[greenberg]

Not at all, but it seems like you are being evasive. Can you please address the argument ?

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) -

If no one can determine the intrinsic value of a 'thing', there is no one that the 'thing' has intrinsic value to. So the intrinsic value of the 'thing' is then non-existent.

- 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.

 

[greenberg]

thats too bad. you two revitalized phil/sciforums. hope you stick around

Noted. Thanks.

 

[Enmos]

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"?

I don't think it's even an assumption. I think it is a 'programmed' illusion.

 

[Enmos]

I was being brief. Sorry if I was too brief.

No problem

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.

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 ?

 

[greenberg]

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.

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

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..

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

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) ?

I neither agree nor disagree.

If no, can you explain why not ?

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.

 

[greenberg]

I don't think it's even an assumption. I think it is a 'programmed' illusion.

"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?

 

[Enmos]

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

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

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

How so ?

I neither agree nor disagree.

I don't understand..

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.

You realized right..lol

 

[Enmos]

"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?

No, 'programmed' is between quotes. By 'programmed' I mean that it became so by means of evolution. It is 'programmed' into our DNA.

 

[wesmorris]

I don't think it's even an assumption. I think it is a 'programmed' illusion.

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.

 

[Enmos]

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.

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..

 

[wesmorris]

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.

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.

The 'self' is a construct of the brain and very helpful in relating to oneself and others.

A construct, yes. Part of reality, yes.

I am convinced that at least all higher animals have a 'self'.

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

Wes how can the 'self' be an assumption ?

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

How to actively assume anything without a 'self'?

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

I mean, who is doing the assuming if the 'self' itself is an assumption ? It doesn't seem to follow..

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