The main characteristics by which we define a triangle in the first place doesn’t change.
This a tricky one that we have to get really technical to answer. However, it is still a good example of what I like to call 'selective validation' which we as subjective beings engage in every single moment of our existence, and is essential for survival (and not losing our minds). Essentially, we are always picking and choosing certain aspects of things in our reality as what counts and what doesn't count.
But frankly that takes a lot of time to explain and won’t make any sense if we don’t start at the fundamental level where we define space and dimensions. I will try to get into this in a future reply. For now I hope we can leave this particular geometrical example aside.
existence “outside” of subjective experience
How can we talk about the existence of such which we have never experienced? Can/have we ever stepped outside of our subjective lives to take a glimpse at an objective reality?
Subjective opinion is part of existence
I would argue it's all of existence. As I have mentioned above, we have never experienced anything outside of our subjective POV. I deny the existence of one objective reality that we are all seeing bits an pieces of, trying to guess it as accurately as we can. I believe that even the most objective facts/truths/reality that we can name are as objective as anything else. And that's fine. I'm not arguing it's wrong/false... but that an objective truth never existed in the first place.
As for the facts vs opinion debate, I think a better way to put my argument is that the line that separates facts from opinions is arbitrary; it depends on the (subjective) beliefs based on the (subjective) perceptions of the observer.
But perahps i give mankind too much credibility in it’s practical awareness regarding such topics. – What would lead them rather to be like simple bacteria – mindless acting and reacting.
A very appropriate comment. Bartlett cites bacterial growth as an example of the exponential function.
As for the facts vs opinion debate, I think a better way to put my argument is that the line that separates facts from opinions is arbitrary; it depends on the (subjective) beliefs based on the (subjective) perceptions of the observer.
As Anil Seth agrees;
SETH: That's right. But the truth is that all perceptions are acts of interpretation. They're acts of informed guesswork that the brain applies when it encounters sensory data. I think the way I can think of this is that there is no light in the skull, and there's no sounds. All that's going on in the brain are electrical impulses whizzing around in complex patterns. And out of all this - all this pattern-making in the brain, a world appears.
And in some sense, we've known this for a long time. So since Newton, it's been pretty clear that colors - red, yellow, green, et cetera - colors are not objective properties of objects in the world. They are attributes of reflected light. And the brain - the visual system will make inferences based on wavelengths of light about what color something is. So something as basic as color is not something that we just passively receive from the world. We actively attribute it to things out there in the world.
And the idea of controlled hallucination is just that, well, this applies to everything. I mean, this applies to everything that we perceive, and not just perceptions of things out there in the world, but also, it applies to our perceptions of our self, of our body, of our memories, of our sense of agency, of our sense of volition - that everything that we perceive is a construction.
But it's not a random construction. It's construction - it's a best guess that is reined in by the sensory data at all times, which is why most of us agree, when we look at a table, that we will say, yeah, I see a table, you see a table and we both see the same thing. And that's because these aren't just random constructions. They're constrained by the sensory data that we get. And that's why, I think, the term, controlled hallucination, is very appropriate.
" existence “outside” of subjective experience "
How can we talk about the existence of such which we have never experienced?
Your point is that you and everyone else doesn't experience anything from outside the respecting mind? So i have to assume your opinion is (and because that equal to fact) that neither you nor everyone else ever have, do and will experience anything than the respecting internal subjective mind. What means no sensory perception at all, except for ones own internal thinking.
This puts me in a awkward position - i had, have and presumably will have a bunch of sensory perception in adition to internal thinking. And for what i perceived every organism and object whit sensory does too.
" Subjective opinion is part of existence "
I would argue it’s all of existence.
Well despite you told there weren't any sensory perception (logic error), you argue that all of what you perceive is part of your existence, your being. Includes myself as well as everyone elses self, all of it is by existing yourself. - Excuse but I can and do clearly differentiate between you and me.
I deny the existence of one objective reality that we are all seeing bits an pieces of, trying to guess it as accurately as we can. I believe that even the most objective facts/truths/reality that we can name are as objective as anything else.
Are you denying your own believe? - I'm sorry as long as you contradict yourself I can't follow your logic.
What means no sensory perception at all, except for ones own internal thinking.
Nope. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that we can never speak of an 'objective' truth while never been non-subjective in our entire lives. We are unable to perceive something out of our own subjective points of views (which is entirely based on our sensory perceptions).
Well despite you told there weren’t any sensory perception
Never said that. I don't know why but you're trying to put words in my mouth. You seem to be fixated on a preconceived assumption (and anger?) about my statements.
I believe that even the most objective facts/truths/reality that we can name are as objective as anything else.
This should be corrected as 'subjective', sorry. I hope that clarifies your confusion. To put it more clearly, I believe that there is no one right/truth that exists and we are either more or less wrong with what we 'know'. I believe such does not exist in the first place. It's all about what we consider is valid. I would be happy to explain more on this for anyone interested.
Never said that. I don’t know why but you’re trying to put words in my mouth. You seem to be fixated on a preconceived assumption (and anger?) about my statements.
Indeed, that was my conclusion based of my assumption about what you ment, wich you clearified for me - thanks. (anger or anything hostile was and is not involved nor intendet, I apologize for the misunderstanding)
Nope. That’s not what I meant. What I meant was that we can never speak of an ‘objective’ truth while never been non-subjective in our entire lives. We are unable to perceive something out of our own subjective points of views (which is entirely based on our sensory perceptions).
That what any sensory perception perceives and afterwards the subjective mind processes, are the "facts" we ment earlier. On which you stated in #345780 - "Facts are opinions that one is convinced to be true eternally." We have indeed opinions about the facts we sensory perceive and consider them to be correct untill sensory perceived different/proven incorrect. But that what it is, what we sonsory perceiving is, regardles of our own subjective opinion about it, what it is. And there has to be something because we sensory perceive something. This "something" we sensory perceive is considered to be the objective truth/facts.
From outside to inside: objective truth/facts > is subjective sensory perceived > get’s subjective perceived/interpreted > leads to subjective opinion
If you still disagree, please state precisely what it is that our sensory perception perceives/receives. - sensory perception does base “our own subjective POV”, you stated.
I would be happy to explain more on this for anyone interested.
I appreciate you are willing to discuss this fully. Having to review something from different angles is illuminating to me.
In many topics is a mention of something being right or wrong, and it kinda disturbs me a bit. So i want to raise the question, is there a generalized right or wrong?
I think the matter of right and wrong depends on what we are talking about. I think everyone can agree it is wrong to kill another human being, with the exception of self-defense and even then one could end up with a conviction of manslaughter if it can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was self-defense in a court of law. However, there are grey areas- domestic abuse. This is where it’s problematic in that some people believe the abused spouse can just leave. It’s not always that simple for an abused spouse to just leave and that is another grey area concerning murder.
Now there is abortion. That is neither right or wrong, except in the eyes of the person who is pondering abortion. The termination of a pregnancy is no one’s business other than the woman and her doctor. There are a few exceptions where the father maybe involved, but only if the woman lets him be involved for whatever her reasons maybe.
Abortion is not murder, however, if someone assaults a pregnant woman, causing the termination of her baby, but the mother lives, that could be considered murder. In the famous case of the Helter Skelter that happened in 1969. Sharon Tate was 8 1/2 months pregnant. Now IMO, especially since Sharon Tate wanted her baby and she was that far along in her pregnancy, it was not 5, but 6 people brutally murdered. Regardless of how many people say were murdered, I don’t know a single person who believes that the Mason family did was right. Just about everyone is appalled by that story to this day and all say it was wrong, evil, heinous, horrifying and many other words.
Another case is Jeffrey Dahmer. Despite being Dx with mental illness (Axis I) and personality disorders (Axis II), his medical (Axis III) environmental (Axis IV) situation growing up didn’t seem too much out of the normal. He was still able to stand trial for his crimes against 17 victims, 16 of whom he cannibalistically murdered. The 17th managed to get away and that was how Dahmer was caught. Dahmer was mentally ill, this much is true, and his case is often studied in psychology classes (mine did) but that does not justify his murdering of others. What he did was still wrong and a crime in a court of law, just as the Mason Family’s murders were. Both cases are also very creepy and disturbing.
Of course, murder is an extreme case concerning right and wrong, but it is one point that there is right and wrong, good and bad (or evil, sick, what have you). There are cases of right and wrong, good and bad.
Another situation, that has two sides- is sex. Rape is wrong, bad, evil, but consensual sex is OK, within the confines of marriage, especially for the religious, and even outside the confines of marriage for everyone outside of religion. It is not acceptable in most of today’s societies to go around raping women (Islamic communities, if rape happens, the blame is placed on the woman, but that’s a religious scenario, that is disputed even among the religious).
Incest is a sick crime of it’s own and I do not know of anyone, outside of some (very small number) religious views, who believes in sexually molesting their own child (especially under the age of 18) is right. Even child marriage, that is not incestuous, is even frowned upon by most people, with the exception of some Islamic communities and a very small number of Xian groups.
If we are talking about extreme cases, there is a right and wrong, good and bad, heinous, disgusting…
However, there are case that are neither right or wrong, IMHO, but are illegal and that is a mother shoplifting/stealing to feed her kids. That is neither OK or bad. I see it as a cry for help and the parent needs help getting the assistance they need to feed their family, but a person stealing/shoplifting for cigarettes or drugs, that is not only illegal, but unjustifiable morally and ethically.
The list of examples go on and on, but part of the reason we are appalled by the extreme things, is in the psychological make-up of all primates and other animals, but we are not appalled by the parent stealing to feed family, is also part of our psychological make-up too. If you observe chimps, they sometimes take from others in their gang to feed their young or they let young take from the elders of the gang. That behaviour of feeding the young is neither good or bad, but is frowned upon by human apes.
How can we talk about the existence of such which we have never experienced? --
We have a theory about the beginning of the physical universe that we are experiencing. That happened 13.7 billion years ago. We use our ability to extrapolate from current data. We can imagine theoretical models then test aspects of them until we reduce the error bars down to a reasonable level. We are experiencing the result of those forces from 13.7 billion years ago, so in that sense we "know" them. If that was the end of it, then all the physicists would currently be out of work, because we've pretty defined the physical laws of the universe. But, we keep going, we continue to design experiments and collect data to understand things that are so small that we can't see them and so far away their light has not yet reached us. We don't know if there are 10 or 12 dimensions or some other numbers, but we can use our objective experience to speculate with some degree of authority.
I think the matter of right and wrong depends on what we are talking about.
What are we talking about? I agree so far, in social norms, ethics, morals, laws... exists appropriate/disappropriate behaviour/actions, because these structures implicate an equivalent framework. Outside of them, there is no framework anymore. What makes these actions, in my opinion at least, not universal/objective but subjective. - You ment inside ethics, etc. , and in that different case "intensities", right?
I think everyone can agree it is wrong to kill another human being, ...
Once upon a time, I asked myself the question: "Why is something (like killing/murder) right or wrong?". Till this day I couldn't come up with an answer, so I don't consider any action strictly right nor wrong, good/bad; adequate or not, yes of course; but not right or wrong.
@mriana Ps: #345825 - nice summary and representation?
Of course, murder is an extreme case concerning right and wrong,...
I deny the existence of one objective reality that we are all seeing bits an pieces of, trying to guess it as accurately as we can. I believe that even the most objective facts/truths/reality that we can name are as objective as anything else.
That may be a hasty conclusion.
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick
Consider the emotional responses of colorblind people who, with the help of corrective optics see the richness of the full color range that nature provides.
Or a deaf person who hears for the first time. It’s amazing to see her brain adapting to new sensory experiences.
Once upon a time, I asked myself the question: “Why is something (like killing/murder) right or wrong?”. Till this day I couldn’t come up with an answer, so I don’t consider any action strictly right nor wrong, good/bad; adequate or not, yes of course; but not right or wrong.
So you think murdering another human being is alright? What the Mason Family and Jeffrey Dahmer was not a problem?
You ment inside ethics, etc. , and in that different case “intensities”, right?
I meant ethics and living in society (societal norms). Even Chimp societies, especially Bonobos, would exile a murderous chimp and for that chimp to join another gang of chimps is difficult. Surviving outside is difficult, if not almost impossible for many species. There’s a reason human beings as a society lock up other human beings in cages if they rape and/or murder another human being.
@mriana Ps: #345825 – nice summary and representation?
Extreme cases are idieal in order to illustrate.
Thank you. I realize it doesn’t answer if “is there a right or wrong”, but in order to live in a society, there are certain rules and norms in which people must live by in order to live in that society. I don’t think it has anything to do with right or wrong. Religion says there are rights and wrongs (sins), but society deals with ethics and norms.
So you think murdering another human being is alright?
My opinion is totally neutral, alright has a "right-isch" ring to it so i would use another term. But in principal yes im not against it nor for it, from a universal perspective, which i like to use as blank standart. However if it does concern my personal interest then i consider to take apropriate action - that wouldn't make it right or wrong to me it just goes against my interest or not. - A way to put it, if the interest is to preserve human lives, then murder is counterproductive not wrong (well of course, there is wrong in a linguistic sense equally to failure, a custom of speech - obiously excluded).
What the Mason Family and Jeffrey Dahmer was not a problem?
I guess it was quite a problem for most involved in that cases, but sins i'm not involved in them, its not a concern of mine. So i don't see any right/justification for me to interfere with them in any way.
I guess it was quite a problem for most involved in that cases, but sins i’m not involved in them, its not a concern of mine. So i don’t see any right/justification for me to interfere with them in any way.
OK, so let’s say a Jeffrey Dahmer was in your neighbourhood and nabbed your son, drugged him, and killed him. Wouldn’t you want him punished as far as the law will allow you to punish him, up to and including life in prison or (and I don’t like this option) the death penalty?
OK, so let’s say a Jeffrey Dahmer was in your neighbourhood and nabbed your son, drugged him, and killed him. Wouldn’t you want him punished as far as the law will allow you to punish him, up to and including life in prison or (and I don’t like this option) the death penalty?
Punishement for punishement sake wouldn't restor my son back to live before it happend. - Outside of future prevention by deterrence i see no use for revenge.
Apropriate preventive measures regarding Jeffrey Dahmer and his doing by others would be welcomed, enforced and adviced as long as they would be useful and efficient. - ignoring the rule on my part would come into consideration as well, but it’s propably no worth, going against it.
What i would do in the first place would be assuring that something like that never could happen from the start, with all my power and abilities at proposal. If it would happen anyway, well i had to look reality in the eye and accept my incapability to enforce my interests in that regard. - Thats just assumed my interest would be, to keep my would be son, out of this kind of harm. Something i do presume to be so (keeping out of harm).
Of course this is just an hypothetical scenario i dont know any potential future for sure(what would happen and what i would do), but i tried to extrapolate.
Punishement for punishement sake wouldn’t restor my son back to live before it happend. – Outside of future prevention by deterrence i see no use for revenge.
Maybe, but wouldn’t you want such a person off the street so that he doesn’t do it again to someone else or do you have no altruism at all?
What i would do in the first place would be assuring that something like that never could happen from the start, with all my power and abilities at proposal. If it would happen anyway, well i had to look reality in the eye and accept my incapability to enforce my interests in that regard. – Thats just assumed my interest would be, to keep my would be son, out of this kind of harm. Something i do presume to be so (keeping out of harm).
from a universal perspective, which i like to use as blank standart. However if it does concern my personal interest then i consider to take apropriate action – that wouldn’t make it right or wrong to me it just goes against my interest or not. – A way to put it, if the interest is to preserve human lives, then murder is counterproductive not wrong (well of course, there is wrong in a linguistic sense equally to failure, a custom of speech – obiously excluded).
It's getting hard to take you seriously. Or you just like beating dead horses. Yeah, sure, a billion years from now, it won't matter who murdered whom today. But our standards of right and wrong don't have that kind of power, that "universal perspective". The danger is, someone like Manson, who can see the pointlessness of applying a billion year perspective, so he applies the pointlessness to now. Right and wrong, as we use the concepts, as they apply to us, are based on exactly what you have noted on this page, thinking about how it affects you, and thinking of a goal like preserving human lives. I'm not going to bother justifying the lives of currently living humans, because I don't think you are serious, I'm not going to argue something that you will just say, "but wow man, does it really matter to the universe?"
It’s getting hard to take you seriously. Or you just like beating dead horses.
Yea indeed, i did double down on a point already made earlier, sorry. I added only my personal perspective, in order to answer a question. - I hope this was appropriate and didn't result in any inconvenience. (@mriana - Have I misunderstood your question? - "So you think murdering another human being is alright?"-mariana)
... and thinking of a goal like preserving human lives. I’m not going to bother justifying the lives of currently living humans, because I don’t think you are serious, I’m not going to argue something that you will just say, ...
"... if the interest is to preserve human lives ..." - this was just an example and attempted to clarify my point.
“… if the interest is to preserve human lives …” – this was just an example and attempted to clarify my point.
Albert Bartlett;
'Smart growth' destroys the environment. 'Dumb growth' destroys the environment. The only difference is that 'smart growth' does it with good taste. It's like booking passage on the Titanic. Whether you go first-class or steerage, the result is the same. Albert Allen Bartlett
This is includet and ment by my second point below: “Apropriate preventive measures … ”
Not the way I understood it as written and it doesn’t answer the altruism question. Something tells me there is a communication issue here.
I don’t think facing reality as it is, has something to do with fate.
Your replies do not lead me to conclude it’s reality being faced. What happens in one area could happen in another. Keep in mind Dahmer moved around in his years of carnage and saying, “well it affected those people, but it didn’t/doesn’t affect me” is, IMO, not facing reality and shows lack of altruism.
@mriana – Have I misunderstood your question? – “So you think murdering another human being is alright?”-mariana
From what I understood from your response, it sounds to me you think it is OK to murder another, even outside of self-defense. I’m hoping I misunderstood you. If I didn’t misunderstand you, then I think the issue is more than a lack altruism, but it’s not fair to go there because as Lausten said, “It’s getting hard to take you seriously.” It could be there is no communication problem and it is actually a case of word/mind games, which could be just as bad.
