another off cut from the animal testing thread, the subjectivness of the universe has come into question serveral times. I beleive that fact canot exist in the unvierse because of the way we process info on the universe, which i will explain later, i was wondering what other people thought on this subject
Originally posted by nktwildPresumably there are objective facts concerning how we process information, correct? But if that's right, then there are at least some objective facts. It makes no sense to talk about everything being subjective, because at the very least there will be objective facts concerning subjective appearance (e.g., 'Subject S has an experience he categorizes as 'green''😉.
another off cut from the animal testing thread, the subjectivness of the universe has come into question serveral times. I beleive that fact canot exist in the unvierse because of the way we process info on the universe, which i will explain later, i was wondering what other people thought on this subject
While having a late night discussion about the existance, or not, of God, one friend (after too much wine) got stuck on the argument that we couldn't even prove that the chair he was sitting on really existed, so why bother trying to prove anything else that is even less "solid". Is this where youare going with this statement, or have I got it wrong?(..again)
Originally posted by nktwildHow about the existence of "checkmate"? The irony is not lost on me that chess players it seems are very philosophical, inquisitive, and logical to the point of driving a vulcan insane, but we play the game of good moves and bad moves, wins, losses, and draws. If you can't prove the existence of checkmate, then I have some scores to settle. 😉Kirk
you would be completly right. because of the way we "see" "hear" and "feel" things, we cannot prove the existence of everthything, including other people and ourselves.
Originally posted by nktwildYour response makes no sense. Here's the easy refutation of your claim...You say that all facts are subjective, correct? Now, is the fact that all facts are subjective itself a subjective fact? Obviously not. Even if it were the case that all my experiential states were subjective, and I never would be justified in inferring from the appearances I'm presented with to some conclusion about the way the world is in and of itself, then there will still be an objective fact, namely the fact 'I'm not justified in inferring from appearance to the way the world is in and of itself'. These are all different ways of saying that the existence of a subjective fact entails the existence of an objective fact. For instance, the fact 'I see a patch of green' (Subjective because there may not be any patch of green in the world) entails that 'Someone seems to see something'. This second fact is not subjective.
yes but even that refers only to what colour [b]you have been told it is, therefore being second hand information and hence subjective[/b]
Originally posted by bbarrbut can it not be argured that acceptance of the existence of objectivity lies in the subjective mind?
For instance, the fact 'I see a patch of green' (Subjective because there may not be any patch of green in the world) entails that 'Someone seems to see something'. This second fact is not subjective.
not trying to argue here, since i like to think that things exist whether we subjectively 'see' them or not
but
is not even the notion that things exist, one that is in our own subjective minds?
Originally posted by pradtfLook, either it is the case that all facts are subjective or it is the case that not all facts are subjective. If it is the case that all facts are subjective, then there is at least one objective fact, namely the fact 'all facts are subjective'. This is just another way of saying that the claim 'all facts are subjective' is incoherent, the claim implies its own falsity. This is just an instance of the logical truth:
but can it not be argured that acceptance of the existence of objectivity lies in the subjective mind?
not trying to argue here, since i like to think that things exist whether we subjectively 'see' them or not
but
is not even the notion that things exist, one that is in our own subjective minds?
(P -> ~P) -> ~P
QED
Anyone who disagrees with this is irrational by definition.
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrtrying to understand the logic in the symbols (P -> ~P) -> ~P
Look, either it is the case that all facts are subjective or it is the case that not all facts are subjective. If it is the case that all facts are subjective, then there is at least one objective fact, namely the fact 'all facts are subjec ...[text shortened]... QED
Anyone who disagrees with this is irrational by definition.
i see this from the truth table (i think):
P~PP->~P
TFF
FTT
so P->~P is the same as ~P
so if P is "all facts are subjective" then ~P is "not all facts are subjective"
then isn't P -> ~P "if all facts are subjective, then not all facts are subjective"
which doesn't make any sense the way i've said it anyway. so how does one read
P -> ~P
???