Objective Philosophy

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

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.

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

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.

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.