Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is there such thing? Not only a third party (or the whole world) thinking a certain way giving evidence on truth here. Search for truth needs facts. Isn't anything else (without evidence) an illusion itself. Help me understand.....

There is no such thing.

You can't have any evidence if the only thing you do is thinking and being philosophical. If you want truth you need action.

Thinking does only create illusions to entertain you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

Me thinks that this is not the first time you have brought up the works of Rand. hmm

Edit-

ZOMG! I'm right.

Originally posted by inimalist
Understand, I am a huge fan of Rand, and agree morally with every word she says. However, as I am a technocrat (notice the small t, indicating that I apply the same scientific logic to issues of state as I would to other issues, not that I believe in a post-capitalist techno-utopia) and a pragmatist, I need to look at politics not in the light of morality, but of efficacy. Yes, lots of capital would be raised, but it would be at the expense of the poor. Sure, it is their own fault for not having money, but when every major social problem of western society stems from poverty and disillusionment, its not effictive.

I'll shy away from a full endorsement of Rand. But her's is the closest to an objective philosophy that exists in popular format.

The idea that reality is objective and can be studied objectively is one thing, but to assert that objective truth can be proven, or known (rather than simply approximated via evidence) is absurd. I'm also a free market advocate, as was Rand, but any economic system doesn't have an intrinsic "morality" to it, and each one presents different problems and challenges. Capitalism in its purest form would not work, though that can be said of any political form, so it's possible only (again) to approximate it, while making concessions for its flaws that are as small as possible.

Rand herself formed what can only be considered a destructive cult around herself, with Rand as the "godhead" (source of objective truth) and no tolerance for dissent among her inner circle and followers. Scary stuff, and while it doesn't invalidate her philosophy, it sheds some light on the author behind it.

In any case, Rand denies altruism to a large extent, which has led to MANY critics among philosophers and theologians. Usually lost is the equally-strong tenet of human capability and our ability to overcome obstacles via reason. Much more humanist than is usually given credit for.

But it's the "objective truth can be known" part that I can't endorse, and the main thing that drives me away from such thinking.

so nobody got the objective - objectivist pun?

I'm pretty sure we all agree about Rand not being really objective...

The physical world is how we see it and think it. Most of us think similarly, probably cause we grew up to think a certain way, and this could affect our behavior. Religion could be a factor as well. I recall the turing test. Anyway aside from what we can think, scientific realism is probably the closest thing to truth. not only humans experience nature, but animals too and we all survive in this world. Behavior of matter is a good example. Subjective thinking can lead to illusions and to intentionly come up with a logical way to justify their actions. This could be agreed upon with a nation. United states for example. Unintentionally going to war while there selfishly thinking about there own safety and interests led them to support it initially. People only bitched when they noticed the unknown consequences. Typical and funny. Aside from politics, people just tend to find ways to justify there actions because they thing there right. Anyway, the world would be boring if everyone thought the same, as was told to you as a baby.
Any real truth I think comes from science and matter. Without matter theres nothing. Those 'only the mind people' can obviously argue this

The philosophical underpinnings of science are, unfortunately, not objective.

In practice, any sembelance of objectivity evaporates.

Originally posted by JediRobin23
The physical world is how we see it and think it. Most of us think similarly, probably cause we grew up to think a certain way, and this could affect our behavior. Religion could be a factor as well. I recall the turing test. Anyway aside from what we can think, scientific realism is probably the closest thing to truth. not only humans experience nature, but animals too and we all survive in this world. Behavior of matter is a good example. Subjective thinking can lead to illusions and to intentionly come up with a logical way to justify their actions. This could be agreed upon with a nation. United states for example. Unintentionally going to war while there selfishly thinking about there own safety and interests led them to support it initially. People only bitched when they noticed the unknown consequences. Typical and funny. Aside from politics, people just tend to find ways to justify there actions because they thing there right. Anyway, the world would be boring if everyone thought the same, as was told to you as a baby.
Any real truth I think comes from science and matter. Without matter theres nothing. Those 'only the mind people' can obviously argue this

There's some good thoughts in here. But it's so garbled together that it comes out sounding like nonsense.

Originally posted by inimalist
The philosophical underpinnings of science are, unfortunately, not objective.

In practice, any sembelance of objectivity evaporates.

Pretty much. Robin mentioned scienfitic realism, which (like any rational philosophy) understands that objective truth can't be known, but presumes an objective universe and attempts to approximate it as closely as possible given our subjectivity. Kinda like how even if we were to find a Grand Unified Field theory of physics, it would have to be subject the the Uncertainty Principle, which negates absolutist interpretation of reality. So even the GUF theory would have a similar caveat.

The link between the two is perhaps tenuous, but I found the analogy quaint.



In any case, that's pretty much my stance, because it gives due credit and importance to empirical findings while maintaining the disclaimer that is our subjectivity. Because I've encountered too many people that use such arguments to retreat to a philosophical "safe zone" where nothing can be proven, disproven, challenged, or debunked. Convenient mostly for those whose beliefs don't stack up to the evidence we have (or lack thereof) but frustrating for others.

What are you talking about The whole point of finding truth is that we have not found it yet. I'm trying to narrow it down in a sense. And your repeating unknowns

"In any case, that's pretty much my stance, because it gives due credit and importance to empirical findings while maintaining the disclaimer that is our subjectivity. Because I've encountered too many people that use such arguments to retreat to a philosophical "safe zone" where nothing can be proven, disproven, challenged, or debunked.."

No shit sherlock

Anyway, you can try to use big words to make yourself sound smart or something, but your not really saying anything.

If you dont find truth then your going to end up where you started.

I'm trying to keep it simple here

lol

the wise man cometh down from the mountains to teach all us ig'nts what for with the filloosoofy

IF we are trapped in our own subjectivity, wherein certainty (objective truth) can not be known, then wouldn't that be our objective truth? And if "mystery" is our only certainty, wouldn't that be square 1 in building a reality map? Square 2 would then bring in empirical science, but without the claim that it reveals "objective truth." Instead, it would claim this is our best As-If in understanding the empirical world.

Originally posted by JediRobin23
What are you talking about The whole point of finding truth is that we have not found it yet. I'm trying to narrow it down in a sense. And your repeating unknowns

"In any case, that's pretty much my stance, because it gives due credit and importance to empirical findings while maintaining the disclaimer that is our subjectivity. Because I've encountered too many people that use such arguments to retreat to a philosophical "safe zone" where nothing can be proven, disproven, challenged, or debunked.."

No shit sherlock

Anyway, you can try to use big words to make yourself sound smart or something, but your not really saying anything.

If you dont find truth then your going to end up where you started.

I'm trying to keep it simple here

So am I. As in, I'm working with what we can know, not conjecture. The (late?) Karl Popper was fond of a phrase that he often used to succintly describe his life's work as a skeptic and scientist: "To err, and err, and err; But less, less, and less." Absolute truth wasn't (and isn't) attainable to him, nor to us. It doesn't invalidate empirical findings that help us view the world objectively, but merely puts them in proper context.

Also, there's no need to resort to insults. I've been nothing but accommodating to your ideas, and even used one in my response to in's last comment.

In any case, don't make it a problem when it doesn't need to be. I'm happy to let it slide once, but won't hesitate to take action if it becomes a problem.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Also, there's no need to resort to insults. I've been nothing but accommodating to your ideas, and even used one in my response to in's last comment.



you've insulted my response by saying its garbled and sounds like nonsense.
Dont be critical to my thoughts, but be open minded. Also, if you want to be accommodating, please do so in a kind and courteous manner

We only have five senses, and those are the only ways we can recognize the world. Even if objective truth exists, we may never have a way to attain it.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol

the wise man cometh down from the mountains to teach all us ig'nts what for with the filloosoofy

Originally posted by JediRobin23
you've insulted my response by saying its garbled and sounds like nonsense.
Dont be critical to my thoughts, but be open minded. Also, if you want to be accommodating, please do so in a kind and courteous manner

It was an honest assessment, intended more as advice than criticism. You'd string together multiple thoughts that didn't always relate to one another. I pointed it out because you said some intelligent, valid stuff (which I also pointed out), and I wanted to let you know so that you could present them more clearly next time because I felt like your ideas were valid. So yes, it was garbled, but don't mistake critique for insult, since it was intended as the former and certainly not the latter.

For starts

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Pretty much. Robin mentioned scienfitic realism, which (like any rational philosophy) understands that objective truth can't be known, but presumes an objective universe and attempts to approximate it as closely as possible given our subjectivity. "

The given subjectivity is a human's mind thought, the physical world is a shared perspective. Truth typically comes from a majority. We all live on the earths surface and drink water in this world.

Given our subjectivity? I think the world was the basis to our subjectivity? Out brains only operate based on the bilogical matter that we have. animals have the same brain matter, but they dont have an intelligence like we do. But can behave very similar. Most likely because we share things in common, like breeding. Its in our nature to do so. Life wont go on without it. If we dont think this way, then theres nothing.

I totally agree with the idea people need to learn for themselves and not only accept the things they see or what us presented to them. so, they can decide for themselves.

Anyway, I may be garbed again cause I think to much...

Originally posted by inimalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29

Funny. I was reading about Rand and Objectivism, and I just noticed the idea of objectivism doesn't seems very empirical. Its something difficult to support.

I mean, we are assuming without evidence that there is a mind-independent reality, usually called objective reality.

Objective reality is like mind for a behaviorist.

It is no different believing in a objective reality or believing in a romantic idea of God. Its the same thing.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Funny. I was reading about Rand and Objectivism, and I just noticed the idea of objectivism doesn't seems very empirical. Its something difficult to support.

I mean, we are assuming without evidence that there is a mind-independent reality, usually called objective reality.

Objective reality is like mind for a behaviorist.

It is no different believing in a objective reality or believing in a romantic idea of God. Its the same thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
so nobody got the objective - objectivist pun?

I'm pretty sure we all agree about Rand not being really objective...

I admit it was a bad/misleading pun, yet, even before I cleared it up myself my opinions of Rand were quoted for me...

I think it is rather self evident that Rand did not discover objective truth

Originally posted by JediRobin23
For starts

The given subjectivity is a human's mind thought, the physical world is a shared perspective. Truth typically comes from a majority. We all live on the earths surface and drink water in this world.

Shared experience doesn't create objective reality. A collective consciousness, perhaps...or less abstractly, culture. But it merely speaks to the similar way that we're all built biologically, or how we have similar cultural influences. It doesn't contribute toward an understanding of truth. Because if majority influenced and determined truth, we could stop now and declare Christianity the best religion, capitalism the best economic system, and poverty the most truthful living condition.

Originally posted by JediRobin23
Given our subjectivity? I think the world was the basis to our subjectivity? Out brains only operate based on the bilogical matter that we have. animals have the same brain matter, but they dont have an intelligence like we do. But can behave very similar. Most likely because we share things in common, like breeding. Its in our nature to do so. Life wont go on without it. If we dont think this way, then theres nothing.

I totally agree with the idea people need to learn for themselves and not only accept the things they see or what us presented to them. so, they can decide for themselves.

The world is the basis for our subjectivity? Subjectivity refers to the fact that everything we experience isn't a direct perception but our brain's interpretation of those perceptions. So we can't be entirely sure that what we experience in the world is entirely truthful, because it is subject to our neural wiring (brain function). For example, no one knows exactly how grass "feels." We can only approximate it based off of how stimuli in on our skin relays the info to the brain, and the sensation that is produced for us in our brains.

That's what I mean when I say we can't know objective truth...we can never be 100% sure of anything. But we can approximate it to a high degree of certainty with empirical tests. So our experience isn't an illusion, but it's incomplete because it's only one interpretation of reality that may be slightly flawed or different than other interpretations.

As for similar behavior to animals, we all share common ancestors on the evolutionary tree (some closer than others) so it would naturally follow that many baser instincts and behaviors are mimicked in different species. So you have a good point there.

Exactly. We only have five senses

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Exactly. We only have five senses WRONG!

Scientists estimate roughly 21 senses.

http://www.lorinroche.com/page70/page59/page59.html

http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=66246

21 huh ? That's pretty cool.


I always felt that there were more than five ways to experience the world, but for the sake of simplicity, I say "five senses".


However, the point still stands. Even if we do actually have 21 different senses (or ways to experience the external world), there are still more than 21 factors/aspects to the external world, and unfortunately, some of those mysteries will be beyond our ability to sense properly.

Eh. A lot of that 21 stuff is dependent on very specific definitions. Most of them could be grouped into larger categories that we're more familiar with using. It's really just dependent on where you draw the line. Even the first article says that it would be possible to subdivide hearing into hundreds of senses, but they obviously didn't because it would just be silly.

vision in fact is comprised of hundreds of billions of senses, one for each rod and cone of the eye

Originally posted by inimalist
vision in fact is comprised of hundreds of billions of senses, one for each rod and cone of the eye

Exactly. Reductio ad absurdum (sic?)

So 5 senses.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Exactly. Reductio ad absurdum (sic?)

So 5 senses.

actually, from my perspective, just saying "vision" isn't nearly comprehensive enough. The research I am doing deals with pathways that certain wavelengths of light take into the visual cortex, each one being very unique and possibly having different properties. From the visual cortex there are 2 distinct visual systems, one that uses primarily (at least in early stages) light/dark based oppositional paths to detect movement and plan actions and the other that uses colour pathways to define and identify objects.

Its more of an ease of communication thing. Trying to put any solid limit on it is a little unnecessary, if for no other reason it requires on to define what is a sense and where the line between "sense" and "not a sense" occurs. Also, given the interconnectedness of our brain, it may even be difficult to divide physical "sense" areas from each-other, though I'll admit it isn't THAT hard.

Actually, now that you have me thinking about it, this might be a cool question to look at...

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, from my perspective, just saying "vision" isn't nearly comprehensive enough. The research I am doing deals with pathways that certain wavelengths of light take into the visual cortex, each one being very unique and possibly having different properties. From the visual cortex there are 2 distinct visual systems, one that uses primarily (at least in early stages) light/dark based oppositional paths to detect movement and plan actions and the other that uses colour pathways to define and identify objects.

Its more of an ease of communication thing. Trying to put any solid limit on it is a little unnecessary, if for no other reason it requires on to define what is a sense and where the line between "sense" and "not a sense" occurs. Also, given the interconnectedness of our brain, it may even be difficult to divide physical "sense" areas from each-other, though I'll admit it isn't THAT hard.

Actually, now that you have me thinking about it, this might be a cool question to look at...

Heh. Can't say I share your enthusiasm, but I'm glad it piqued your interest. To me, it just seems like it would be rearranging furniture in a burning house...since all you'd be doing is drawing the line between different "senses" at varying levels. You could write an equally convincing paper about us having 1000 senses or just 1 depending on your criteria and definitions.

Yeah, I think now this is getting into a semantic argument. Thanks Lord xyz

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Yeah, I think now this is getting into a semantic argument. Thanks Lord xyz

indeed, but it relates to the matter at hand

if we want to "objectively" talk about perception, we would need to define what a percept is, where they come from, etc.

The fact that we cannot, with any absolute authority, say how many systems or different type of senses are involved in vision or taste or smell, shows a huge limitation in our ability to think objectively.

In this case, it would be the nature of humans to chunk things into single, definable parts. So, chunking all the visual systems into a sense of vision is probably a very human way to look at the problem of "visual perception", but there is no reason to think that the "human way" of understanding reflects nature as a whole.

To repeat the first page of the thread, human perception is limited when it comes to an objective understanding of nature, making an absolutely objective philosophy impossible.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
21 huh ? That's pretty cool.


I always felt that there were more than five ways to experience the world, but for the sake of simplicity, I say "five senses".


However, the point still stands. Even if we do actually have 21 different senses (or ways to experience the external world), there are still more than 21 factors/aspects to the external world, and unfortunately, some of those mysteries will be beyond our ability to sense properly. We can also only see in 3 dimensions.

2 dimensions, everything we "see" is the 2d image on the retina.

but it is even more complicated than that

We can only imagine in 3 dimensions, but we see in 2 dimensions...I think would be a good compromise.


I definately agree though, I don't think objective philosophy is even possible. I never thought philosophy could be defined as objective in the first place, because its all a matter of observation and perspective. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be as objective as possible when it comes to philosophy.

I'd like to think we can imagine the 4th dimension (time). Beyond that (which is dealt with in string theory more than anything these days) it becomes pretty much impossible.

Originally posted by inimalist
I admit it was a bad/misleading pun, yet, even before I cleared it up myself my opinions of Rand were quoted for me...

I think it is rather self evident that Rand did not discover objective truth Oh she might have.

Just no way of proving it.


As for Rand, this one act play by Murray Rothbard pretty much shows her delusions in a great satirical manner http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

I am sure ultimately most libertarians love Rand for what she did for the movement and in a way to most libertarians at some point in their lives. But there's no denying it...that ***** was crazy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'd like to think we can imagine the 4th dimension (time). Beyond that (which is dealt with in string theory more than anything these days) it becomes pretty much impossible.
I thought you might find this interesting, at the very least, entertaining.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php
Click on the rotating numbers at right.

EDIT...damn. Just checked the link. I don't think the video works anymore.

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php

I followed a couple links and I think I found what you were talking about.

Wild stuff. There's a guy (whose name escapes me) who recently worked out the math behind string theory, and apparently it checks out in theory...they just need some way to test it now. I'll look him up soon and maybe post it. Because I've been meaning to look into is work.

Anyway, thanks. I enjoyed the vid.