<div class="gmail_quote">2010/8/16 samantha <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sjatkins@mac.com">sjatkins@mac.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im">
Jebadiah Moore wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/8/15 John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jonkc@bellsouth.net" target="_blank">jonkc@bellsouth.net</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Then forget about good or bad, is relativism objectively true? </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> only that objectivity doesn't exist.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
But is what you just said really true, objectively? If we can't talk
about good or evil or truth or falsehood then that would rather
seriously limit the scope of philosophy and we'd only have the
contemptible "the story of Adam and Eve and the talking snake is true
for me" or "it's true for me that 2+2=5". Jebadiah, do you really think
that is the proper way to figure out how the world works?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Depends what you mean by "objective". Most people take things
which are shown by logic to be "objectively" true, and I agree with
this. The problem is, you always have to start with some axioms, or
you can't show anything. And because we can't know anything
directly--we have to rely on induction through our
senses/experiences--we have no truly "known" axioms, and thus can't
prove anything is true about our universe.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
There is no other way of knowing possible except through some form of
sensory apparatus processed by some form of processing and pattern
extraction unit like a brain. If anyone believes that there is I would
be very keen to learn exactly how you think that would work or could
come to be. We only have what is as congruent with what we perceive
and non-contradictory processing of that and the patterns derived from
it and as scrupulously checked as we are able and willing. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Agreed.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> But to
say that isn't "objective" makes no sense. It is as objective as it is
possible in reality for any intelligence to be. There is nothing
better to compare it to in a seemingly denigrating manner.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is where I disagree. "Objective" means "absolutely known and true, independent of the observer". There are objective facts, but we can't know them objectively since--like you say--we have only one way of knowing, "through some form of sensory apparatus processed by some form of processing and pattern extraction unit like a brain". What I'm saying is that there are no things known within our universe about our universe objectively, even though there are objective facts about our universe.</div>
<div><br></div><div>On the other hand, we can know logical facts given a set of axioms, and we can posit axioms that seem to model our universe. Yes, this is a really awesome thing. Much more so, in fact, than if we could somehow observe facts about the universe directly and know that these were not somehow biased. Nonetheless, our observations our show us objective truths about the universe, other than that we remember that we observed them, and so of course logic based on axioms based on our possibly flawed observations cannot be objective either.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I did not mean to state anything in a "denigrating manner". Perhaps this sheds some light on your own value system (and therefore probably biases), that you assume "not objectively known facts" are bad? An admiral sentiment, but rather like saying that "non-steel food is bad".</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<br>
</div>
<div>So, we can prove things objectively, but we can't prove things
about our universe objectively. </div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
That does not compute. You are claiming that only pure logic based on
axioms is "objective"?<div class="im"><br></div></div></blockquote><div>Yup. Everything else is subject to bias, without us knowing if there is bias. The axioms we choose are non-objective as well, but if the axioms are true then we do then know that are conclusions are true as well (presuming we follow logic correctly).</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, my argument is rather by definition. You could posit other forms of "objective" (such as consensus), and then this whole discussion would be different. But I think that most people now, when they say objective, mean what I've said it means. Feel free to contest this.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, my claim that logically generated statements based on true axioms meet my criteria of objectivity is itself not objective. Nonetheless, I believe it to be true, and I think you'll find few who contest it. (Although some might say that there are other ways of being objective; apparently you think so. I'd love to hear it.)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div class="im"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
In fact, we can't prove that there is an objective universe at
all, containing anything but our own mind (the "everything is in your
head" scenario).</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div>
That is a very limited definition of "objective" as it requires some
godlike absolute knowledge that is impossible for any actual mind to
ever ever have in order to have any objective knowledge about anything
much beyond maths. That is an absurd position.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Annoying, but not absurd. What you're saying is that the definition of immortal, "incapable of dying; existing forever" is absurd, because it is a very limited and requires godlike absolute power that is impossible for any actual mind to ever ever have. The definition is what it is; if it yields the empty set, it doesn't mean that the definition is wrong, just that it's not much fun to talk about. Of course you can have variants--such as the sometimes transhumanist goal of immortality modulo destruction ("everything dies when you blow it to bits"). </div>
<div><br></div><div>(Perhaps immortality is a bad example and there is actually some way to build an information processing yet indestructible substance. But I doubt it.)</div><div><br></div><div>I'm picking up the vibe that you are defining "objective" in a way that I am not. What's your definition?</div>
</div><br>-- <br>Jebadiah Moore<br><a href="http://blog.jebdm.net">http://blog.jebdm.net</a><br>