Metaphysics, intelligence, God

[mhss1992]

Yes, I can't show someone else my subjective position.

That's why I said it is frustrating.

I tried to make this as objective as possible, with the thought experiments, but, in the end, they cannot be conclusive unless we try to find a semantic value for some of the conclusions, and that cannot be done only with objective approach.

One observer "becoming" the other still doesn't make sense for me, but only if subjective approach is considered.


My point is that certain things exist only subjectively, therefore, objective approach has limitations. Subjective approach is not necessarily wrong, and, sometimes, it's the only option.


But if you think it's a waste of time, if you think that nothing useful can come from subjective approach, then never mind.

[Mollocephalus]

instead of closing completely to what i'm trying to say, you should actually think through it and keep discussing till we reach an univoc answer. in any discussion you (and i, of course) should be open to admit the fact of being wrong and adjust our knowledges and opinions due to the new data in possess. if you are going to be like "hey i don't want to adimt i'm wrong even if blatant evidence is against my point i will just keep thinking what i think" then you shouldn't be posting in critical thinking at all. you say that there are things which cannot be treaded objectively. can you please elaborate this? also, what makes something impossible to be treated objectively? what's the difference between something that can be treated objectively and something that can not?

[mhss1992]

Just look at the previous replies.

Qualia cannot be treated objectively, because it is, by definition, a completely subjective thing itself. The other things regarding the observer require a subjective approach to see if they actually make sense.

The thought experiments led to affirmations that, according to materialists, are perfectly acceptable. But, when I think about them, they cannot make sense. But that's the problem, it's a subjective thing.

If people simply deny every form of subjective approach, then certain things will never be discovered, because things like qualia exist only subjectively.

Subjective approach is limited, but so is objective approach.


I know this feels ridiculous to most people in this forum, but all I'm trying to do is seek alternative methods, when the most accepted method doesn't work.

[Mollocephalus]

things require an observer only to be interpreted, but they exist by themselves. the way you interpret anything is of course subjective, because it uses the structures that compose the mind and that are never going to be exactly the same as those of another person, but it also means that no interpretation is exact, because the interpretations may vary. if you use other means beside observation by your incomplete organs to support your theory, then you'll be more likely to get the exact result.

i still don't see how this applies to the discussion we're having.

[Iam90]

stupid default linear - newest first post layout confused me and I realize that my post was a little off the current train of thought. I'll edit this later

[Finkle007]

I didn't read anything that was said, but I want to hopefully move the topic onto intelligence.
What exactly is truth? We have this conception of it, however it never verifies.
We have mathematical equations that equal to truth, we have scientific results that equal truth, we have personal experience that equals truth... but are all those criteria actually regarded as truth?
If that's the case... humans are actually not intelligent because of our demand to make constant conjunctions... there is a mighty problem with this statement; when we create familiarity we're actually not looking at the entire whole, mere the only results which coincide with other familiar objects we see. Humans are natural this way, we're so freaked out by the sense of mystery everyday we try to 'rationalize' our sense of the world.
The world is regarded by belief, and in my experience in philosophic discussions and being in philosophy itself (honours specializing)... believe it or not but truth has a big degree of faith involved.
For example, when I was 16 I started to drive, but I had no idea how to. I had general ideas of where the pettle was, and that the steering wheel had a use and so forth... but on the whole I had no idea how to drive. I had to gamble with myself in order to start driving, where with practice I do not necessarily think about my actions while driving a car, it has become first nature to me.
Upon reflection I see that I am still creating familarity while driving, eating, thinking, talking, living, BEING.
In our essences about being we're only intelligable insofar as our ability to self reflect and come to our own conclusions. while others may see similarities in my way of thinking, truth in itself can never be fully reached, there will always be someone to contend with it.
Not sure if this related to what you have been saying, but I just found this forum now... be sure to see me a lot from now.

Thanks for your time

[Izzy]

I believe it to be the general consensus of the scientific community that nothing on a conceptual level can ever be fact. The closest thing to a fact is a theory and that only means that for everything we know we cannot prove it to be false. The only things we can truly consider facts are things based on our own artificial definitions. We have defined what we consider to be an apple and that the first color in the physical spectrum is called red. So we can make the claim that an apple is red as fact.

[devonin]

Well, no you could make the claim that THIS single apple is red, but you woudln't even get universal consensus on that.

[Izzy]

Well I was implying that we had 1 apple that was red, not that all apples are red...


This is a picture of an apple that is red. FACT.

We have defined what an apple is and what red is and even what a picture is.

[Artic_counter]

What if you're in a room with a color blind person who can't see the color red. Is this apple still red ? Is your senses right or his senses right ? Where is the truth ?

[devonin]

That depends upon how you define colours. The thing of it is, you can bounce light off that object, and measure the wavelength of the reflections, and simply define that "red" is any result between a certin range of wavelengths, in which case it -is- "red" regardless of whether your eyes happen to perceive the wavelengths correctly.

[stepmanias]

Originally Posted by insanefreddy926

Evolution isn't a counterargument to intelligent design. Just because we understand the processes that give rise to the complexity of life, it doesn't mean we can conclude that there is no intelligent origin.

For the coin analogy, a theist would believe in the tails because the basis of pretty much any religion is that you have faith in something without knowing it's there, which is why it's incompatible with science, and pointless to try to argue against the existence of God to a theist, because it's not relevant. In the same way a theist trying to prove the existence of an intelligence to a atheist scientist is also just as pointless, because there's no evidence they can provide. Personally, I would say that yes, probability shows that it is most likely a double-headed coin, but since we don't know for sure, and probably will never know for sure, there is the possibility of a tails side existing.

And as for knowing why things are the way they are, I would like you to share those reasons, because I for one don't know why the universe exists.

This

[Finkle007]

Life is the way it is because of our ability to choose what we believe.

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by Artic_counter

What if you're in a room with a color blind person who can't see the color red. Is this apple still red ? Is your senses right or his senses right ? Where is the truth ?

I think you are missing the point.

[customstuff]

Originally Posted by Artic_counter

What if you're in a room with a color blind person who can't see the color red. Is this apple still red ? Is your senses right or his senses right ? Where is the truth ?

That would be similar to saying that Christians have some sort of handicap in the way they believe. I, personally, am not religious in any way. I just accept that whatever happens, happens.

Also, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a colour blind person can't see the "correct" colour, it doesn't mean that it isn't that colour. You may not be able to see God, but people still believe he exists. On the contrary, we don't see dinosaurs running around but that doesn't mean they do exist.

[Artic_counter]

Originally Posted by customstuff

That would be similar to saying that Christians have some sort of handicap in the way they believe. I, personally, am not religious in any way. I just accept that whatever happens, happens.

Also, just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If a colour blind person can't see the "correct" colour, it doesn't mean that it isn't that colour. You may not be able to see God, but people still believe he exists. On the contrary, we don't see dinosaurs running around but that doesn't mean they do exist.

Well I wasn't implying that red wouldn't exist. I was wondering whose concept of red was right and whose were not. Also, I don't quite understand why it would be like saying Christian have some for of handicaps.

Yeah, I get your point but I was wondering about other things.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Artic_counter

What if you're in a room with a color blind person who can't see the color red. Is this apple still red ? Is your senses right or his senses right ? Where is the truth ?

Devonin essentially answers this, but I'll take a crack at it.

You're asking three similar, but unrelated questions.

1. Yes, the apple is still red.
2. Neither are 'right'.
3. In the physical world.

Now for explanations:

1. 'Red' is only a label. The apple is whatever the apple is, regardless of how it is perceived. This is because the apple contains inherent physical properties of matter that make it the way that it is. Our perception of this properties does not change them.

As such, as Devonin said, the inherent properties of matter that reflect light off of an apple remain constant, meaning the apple is still 'red', or whatever you want to label it. You just have to make sure that label is *constant* and reliably associated with these physical qualities.

2. Technically, all senses are a construct of the brain. That is, the physical universe is interpreted systematically in our minds to create an image of reality.

None of these constructions are 'right' because none of them are the physical universe itself. Rather, they are a sort of mirror image, or physical reality mapping itself onto the mind.

3. This relates to the previous question. The constant here is the physical universe itself. Regardless of how our minds interpret the universe, the universe stays static in its physical properties. As such, that is where the truth is, and that is where science attempts to make valid and reliable measurements.


These questions bring up an important philosophical point that can bring up interesting questions related to the thread topic:

Our brains create our perceptions of the universe - however, our brains are part of the universe itself. Therefore, our psychological minds are a construct of the universe itself. Our observations and thoughts are the universe looking back and thinking about itself.

This makes neuroscience not only the study of the brain, but the study of the universe mapping and constructing an image of itself. That is, a closed loop is created, where the universe is able to observe and understand itself.

As such, does that make us a form of utility for the physical universe? Much like humans create tools to perform certain tasks, do universes create minds in order to understand themselves?

Does this make the universe conscious and aware of its own existence?

If so, does that qualify as giving our lives meaning?

[Cavernio]

I don't really trust myself to know what else out there really has perception because I can imagine an AI as complex as a human that acts human that could even been based on human anatomy and brain structure and yet not actually have perception. I don't believe my computer experiences qualae, and I'm hard pressed to say how complex the computer would have to be, or how similar to a human brain it would have to be, in order to begin experiencing it.

[Finkle007]

but the problem of all of this is truth is never real. there are always people who will not accept truths and because of that there is no universality.
In accordance to the apple... how do you know I don't see a different colour of red?
that's the problem... you can only account for what "you" know and never the other, because your thoughts are not theirs.
The apple is a basic example, to make it more faulty lets talk about crazy concepts such as God, Justice, Existence, the Universe, etc. These are the fundemental questions that make me believe that truth is subjective. Yes, a lot of us may hold the same opinion, or even generalization... however correslative proofs cannot exist, you'll just go into a infinite regress, and where's the starting point? The idea of a potential truth created my a human through observation, he has no idea if it's true, he basis it off of justification. But the initial observance is subjective it's a priori.
I'm trying to make you guys understand that proofs are unnecessary, truths exist in your life because of a multitude of things, and you have been conditioned to believe them. Through any means.
My 4th year philosophy class on William James has shed a lot of light into what I know, how I know and why I know... it's absolutely remarkable

[MrRubix]

Keep in mind that the human mind has evolved to view reality a certain way.

The apple is red only because we see it as red. We've evolved the ability to see a particular section of the electromagnetic spectrum because it serves some useful purpose to our survival. The apple is red insofar as it reflects a certain wavelength of that spectrum.

Bees, for instance, are able to see ultraviolet light in a way that we cannot. Some species of fish can see infrared. There's no question about the underlying causes of things like "color" -- the question is how it is interpreted as information.