Intrinsic Value

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

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

    Messages:
    9,845
    Did you not read post 128? Was it unclear? It must have been I suppose or you wouldn't have asked me this. Hmmm. Not sure where I've gone wrong. As I said in re-reading it made sense to me.

    material seems to be part of the necessary conditions for consciousness, but does not fully explain it or even allow for it... hence my inital "soft objection" like I said, which I think culminated in my comments in 128. Meh. examine closely please.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    9,845
    I don't think so, but regardless I appreciate your indulgance. It helps me to understand you. I want to finish a reply now but alas, the kids require attention from da daddy. I'll get back to this in a few hours.

    I'll say though, to me objective reality is not the same as physical reality. Physical reality is "space-time" in the physics type sense. Maybe that clarifies stuff a smidge. Objective reality is "what is, regardless of what we can percieve of it" and "physical reality" is that which physicists and engineers generally discuss, the material world as is generally conceived of.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I thought I answered it, but apparently not.. I would have remembered that I didn't get it lol. I think I only read it..
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No worries, I have to go myself in a few minutes

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    pardon
    i havent read
    i need to figure out what i am saying first

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    how long has this being going? do you snicker when others get confused?
    who or what dictates "what is......"?
    i remember when you touted "faith" for the first time
    is it fun to defy conventional terminology?
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i am so fucking mad i feel like hunting down every major player in sci and making them my bitch

    mad in general that is

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    i think i can
     
  11. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    Yeah, I can relate to that. It seems life would be so much easier if I were top of the heap!
     
  12. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    I don't know. I think I always think of it that way, but shit I dunno in a different context I might have said it differently. *shrug*

    Perhaps instead of trying to "bitch me", you could just say why you have a problem with the distinction - and where you find it to contradict something I've said.

    no i feel like an idiot and try to straighten out miscommunication.

    nothing. it just is, whatever that is.

    I suppose. I don't really think of it that way. Often though I don't think conventional terminology makes much sense in the context of all this shit we're talking about.
     
  13. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Note that the loose definition of objective reality attempts to clearly recognize that nothing can really be known of the subject of the term besides what is percieved of it.

    Physical reality on the other hand, as I use it... refers basically to the ideas put forth in my education and shit I read in science articles and shit. "space-time" and whatnot.
     
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Lies.
     
  15. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    This thread makes me want to scream and rend my clothes and knock my head against a wall. But if i do that I might change my notions of 'self'.....
     
  16. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i cannot
    i am too confused
    rage makes me irrational too

    yet
    clarity always returns
    then
    we shall see

    /clearly insane
     
  17. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Well thanks for indulging me anyway.

    Well I think I've explained that already, so I'll just say that what I think I've identified is a logically necessary spatial dimension of some sort in the gap between what is generally considered objective reality; as you put it "physical reality and objective reality are the same", and the unknowable "objective reality" as I specified the term before. I think of it as "the tao", "objective reality", "what is", and "the thing itself". Each term basically the same and fundamentally unknowable as I believe we've agreed.

    Ok, but we know representations exist, as we are currently employing them and experiencing them in many different ways all the time. So this means "physical reality" doesn't quite cover all the bases. Here I think it where many people introduce the notion of "the supernatural", which I think is totally retarded, as there can be no such thing. If it exists, it is part of nature.

    Instead, I go on about it as I'm doing now. Seems more sensible to me at least. Either way I won't excuse it, as this is what I am, and what I do. Later, maybe what I do won't be this, but now this is where I am.

    Yes any two objects, anything. Just the act of it even. In "physical reality" as I've termed it above, there is no place for ideas (abstracts). They are not physical. They have meaning. Certaintly we could point to a brain and say "look it's in here stoopid", but exactly "where" in there doesn't cover the experience (abstraction, conceptualization) of it. Logic is a good example, as it doesn't exist in "objective reality" as it's typically though of. You can't hold it in your hand. It's not the pattern, it's the act of recognizing, embodying the pattern with a portion of "self" that cannot be accounted for in space-time coordinates.

    Hopefully the explanation is hidden in my excessive verbage above.

    Ok, no. In our model of objective reality, it would behoove us to consider an "abstract element" in addition to the generally accepted "physical reality" (space-time) in order that our model's consistence with what is logical yields higher utility. Subjective reality exists, so it must be part of objective reality (in which everything exists).

    As to why we'd introduce the term, sure. But really I was trying to explain what I explained above about the shortfall in the explanation of objective reality offered by "physical reality" as I know it.

    Yes, but not quite via the route you used. Actually this is basically just an observation in support of the conclusion regarding the status of "physical reality" falling short of reasonably attempting to describe "objective reality".

    Cool that helps.

    Okay: IMO for things to exist, there must be medium that allows them to do so. When we have a specific notion like "meaning" or "abstracts" that cannot be sensibly placed into a model, that requires the model to be altered to allow that variable to change in accordance with observation. It needs a "conceptual slot" if you will, in our model. Here, we're modelling concepts themselves as part of "objective reality", so if we're to place them within a model of "objective reality" that has the utility of apparently accurate respresentation, we'd want to ensure there is a "holder" like x, y, z or t that we could use to assign it values. We currently have x, y, z and t but no "a", if you follow. It seems to me that our model must require some capacity for us to consider the very building blocks that allowed us to make a model in the first place. I feel as though I've demonstrated this necessity.

    I think I see where you're coming from, and I see why I think we reach different conclusions. If to you subjective reality and objective reality are mutually exclusive as you seem to put it, then I think I'd agree with you. Instead though I find that subjective reality is necessarily a subset of "objective reality" in terms of the model, meaning that it is indeed part of it... an aspect of it, part of its mechanics.

    I think this is actually us agreeing on the same point in different terms. *squints* Hmmm. Probably.

    I mean that which has not been observed has no name. It's not an object, it's not a rock, it's not purple... not until it's observed. That's not to say that something there doesn't exist, only that it is forever nameless in and of itself - as far as it is possible for me to know, now. Though I name it "a big objective purple rock", that doesn't necessarily mean shit about objective reality, only the way I relate to it (the models that might build in my mind abou tit).

    Until it's noticed, it's not an "object", as the concept of "object" has not been applied.

    Though my model of objective reality (subjective reality) might be full of objects, they reside in my mind - not outside it.

    That's not to say the model isn't of high utility to me.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Fuck I dunno. I think maybe I do this shit because the thoughts are a little euphoric. The more I process the stranger of a semi-hypnotic stupor I experience, just spewing thoughts as they come.


    Sure.

    Yes exactly.

    Yeah it is, for whatever that's worth.

    Well sorry if you feel jipped, really. I'm not trying to rip you off I swear. I just spew what seems important and this is what happens.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2007
  18. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Too vague.
     
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
  20. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Perhaps my greatest weakness is that I really can't process all in this in someone else's terms. I got a little ticked just on seeing the term "IPK" and finding out what it meant, as my reaction was "that's framed all stupid", which makes me feel like a helpless ass that is stuck with his retarded perspective, doomed to fail in communicating with anyone on this topic in a meaniful way for the duration of my me. But regardless of that feeling, I contradict it with the feeling of personal discovery in that shit, and end up with a wash for the most part that seems kind of funny to me.

    So sorry, I have to hash out terms with the individual in order to feel that something interesting has taken place. Reading some random site (which of course seemed kind of interesting), but I'm a real ass about this shit and get pissed when I can't ask the author "why you say it like that bitch?", to me mostly just adds another barrier to feeling that some understanding has happened.
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    dunno
    i extract useful info
    standards are good when we argue over semantics as we are doing now
    a reference point. no point in reinventing the wheel
    prior to this i was just thinking about philforums where most discussions drag out established philosophers as a ref point and then go on to offer counterpoints and whatnot

    sci just vomits stuff out
    good but......
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    lemme look at ipk
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    actually i looked again and meh not bad maybe but too much to consider without hope for feedback/clarification - to me at least.
     

Share This Page