Die Hard Christians:

Originally posted by RBHILL
Not really

Christ IS Life, and Jesus is being "girded" right now rectifying much that all shall return to the Father of all, the woman in travail that he IS (woe to that man/ wo man), to "bare" the MANchild to lead ALL nations. And a child SHALL lead. A MANchild

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
>>>this is similar as the "pluto is not a planet" debate. someone once defined planets in a certain way. then a dude came and decided a new category should be defined, and that pluto belongs to it. theoretically i can invent any definitions. i can say that a planet must be blue. therefore jupiter is not a planet. however you might have an objection to ...[text shortened]... else. if one accept your definition, everything following is perfectly logical.<<<

exActly!

What do you mean exactly?

Zahlanzi offered the definition of the word "objectivity" (a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>😉, and I tild him that objectivity is a task impossible. Our conversation has nothing to do with the definition of the words "objective/ objectivity" because we both know the definition and we agree regarding this matter.
We disagree because Zahlanzi beleives that objectivity can be achieved by an individual, whilst on the contrary I argue that an individual can never express her/ himself, deal and/ or judge facts and/ or conditions and/ or whatever s/he perceives, experiences and interprets without being biased by personal feelings and personal interpretations
😵

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
>>>how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time?<<<

They ARE deceived, deceived by what appears to be, but is not, it's all mental, therefore all our senses, under an INfluece to be of what is called "matter" is -only- this captivity of one being separately aware they are only spiritual.

The ...[text shortened]... 's captivity to it's subtle erroneous conceptions and all their inventions, influences.

yeh, matrix philosophy is very nice to discuss over a spliff. but has no real place in real world.

Originally posted by black beetle
What do you mean exactly?

Zahlanzi offered the definition of the word "objectivity" (a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>😉, and I tild him that objectivity is a task impossible. O s and interprets without being biased by personal feelings and personal interpretations
😵

with the mention that objectivity as defined by me (well, by everyone) CAN be achieved.

i agreed that objectivity as defined by you can never be achieved because you defined subjectivity as everything that is.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
with the mention that objectivity as defined by me (well, by everyone) CAN be achieved.

i agreed that objectivity as defined by you can never be achieved because you defined subjectivity as everything that is.

I repeat that we both agree regarding the definition of the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity".

Kindly please explain how objectivity can be ever achieved, since the individual cannot express her/ himself, deal and/ or judge facts and/ or conditions and/ or whatever s/he perceives, experiences and interprets without being biased by personal feelings and personal interpretations😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I repeat that we both agree regarding the definition of the words "objectivity" and "subjectivity".

Kindly please explain how objectivity can be ever achieved, since the individual cannot express her/ himself, deal and/ or judge facts and/ or conditions and/ or whatever s/he perceives, experiences and interprets without being biased by personal feelings and personal interpretations😵

i dont see how we can agree both on the definition of objectivity since you claim that any reality perceived through our sences( therefore all reality) is subjective.

we discussed how this definition basically rules out objectivity but also designates as "subjective" both reality influenced by our feelings and reality unaltered by them.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i dont see how we can agree both on the definition of objectivity since you claim that any reality perceived through our sences( therefore all reality) is subjective.

we discussed how this definition basically rules out objectivity but also designates as "subjective" both reality influenced by our feelings and reality unaltered by them.

We both agree regarding the definition, but we disagree regarding the existence of the objectivity per se: you think that objectivity is something an individual can achieve, whilst I disagree and I argue that objectivity is merely wishful thinking and as such it can never be achieved. So I am asking you to demonstrate how could ever an individual express her/ himself, deal and/ or judge facts and/ or conditions and/ or whatever s/he perceives, experiences and interprets without being biased by personal feelings and personal interpretations😵

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeh, matrix philosophy is very nice to discuss over a spliff. but has no real place in real world.

One day you shall understand the word "REALITY".

I know that makes no sense to you, however, I am correct.

Originally posted by black beetle
We both agree regarding the definition, but we disagree regarding the existence of the objectivity per se: you think that objectivity is something an individual can achieve, whilst I disagree and I argue that objectivity is merely wishful thinking and as such it can never be achieved. So I am asking you to demonstrate how could ever an individual expres ...[text shortened]... eriences and interprets without being biased by personal feelings and personal interpretations😵

g=9.8 m/s*s (on earth)


i am not having any feelings toward the above statement. if i am sad tomorrow or happy, it won't make any difference. the gravitational acceleration will remain the same. or better said, i will not perceive it in any other way. i am being objective.

Originally posted by tacoandlettuce
One day you shall understand the word "REALITY".

I know that makes no sense to you, however, I am correct.

yes, you are making a very logical point. how could i miss the irrefutable argument "i am right, you are wrong, and someday you will see things my way".

I am convinced!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
g=9.8 m/s*s (on earth)


i am not having any feelings toward the above statement. if i am sad tomorrow or happy, it won't make any difference. the gravitational acceleration will remain the same. or better said, i will not perceive it in any other way. i am being objective.

Cool!

If I were to believe that a true reality exists independently of the individual, I would be also forced to believe that our knowledge reflects an objective, external, knowable world we all can understand. If this belief holds, then this view of the world could be considered objective alright. However methinks the subject alone invents reality and thus our knowledge is tied to an internal-subjective perspective where “absolute truth” is replaced by ways of knowing. Therefore, regardless of the state of our inner world, methinks the specific description of the given reality known as “g=9.8 m/s*s” is possible solely in relation to our subjective internal perspectives and experiences.

I argue that without the purely subjective act of perceiving, the mind could not know that the mental object/ idea you name “g” is existent just as a born blind individual cannot perceive the essence of the, say, red colour although it can understand the definition of this mental object; and, in the world of a deaf person, our whole world of music is not existent, etc etc. Therefore our interaction with the physical world by means of our perception is the sole ground of being of the arising of our thought, who in turn brought up our idea that in turn became the specific knowledge “g=9.8 m/s*s”. Therefore, our knowledge “g=9.8 m/s*s” could not exist without a direct connection to the mind -a purely subjective connection, that is. In my opinion this knowledge is not a thing in itself due to the fact that “g=9.8 m/s*s” cannot be separated from our personal (subjective) interaction with the physical world, therefore I argue that the meaning/ knowledge “g=9.8 m/s*s” is merely the result of our mind acting upon objects.

You can state “g=9.8 m/s*s” because of a single reason: your own mind acted upon the object “g” (that you invented) through your own perceptions, values and experiences. Of course “g” has not an existence distinct from the one you perceived by your mind by means of “understanding”. In my opinion the knower alone acts upon the observed object and creates meaning out of this interaction
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Cool!

If I were to believe that a true reality exists independently of the individual, I would be also forced to believe that our knowledge reflects an objective, external, knowable world we all can understand. If this belief holds, then this view of the world could be considered objective alright. However methinks the subject alone invents reality a ...[text shortened]... n the knower alone acts upon the observed object and creates meaning out of this interaction
😵

and you still argue you adhere to the same definition of objectiveness as i do?

i have stated countless times that the way you define subjectivity leaves no room for anything else. objectivity can never be achieved. and therefore you define as subjective 2 different concepts(and countless variations of those concepts)


your red example fails. i am not talking about cases where someone is incapable of preceiving the color red. i am talking about cases where someone does indeed have sight undamaged and sees red as red or sees red as blue because he is so darn mad for some reason and he wants to see blue.


"If I were to believe that a true reality exists independently of the individual"
reality does exists independently of the individual. to say differently is to delve into speculations worthy of the wildest religions. a table is a table no matter if no observers are perceiving it. sure, if you say that if nobody is watching the table might turn into a unicorn. but this has the same value as me claiming there is a pink unicorn living in my fridge who disappears everytime someone is looking at it. it is unprovable. it is illogical. it has no place in rational thinking.

"Therefore, our knowledge “g=9.8 m/s*s” could not exist without a direct connection to the mind -a purely subjective connection, that is"
can you make this connection in any other way? can you say that g= donkeys without sounding like a moron? if the connection is made by each individual in the exact way, it is no longer subjective but objective. not influenced by anything. it is an exact replica of reality.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and you still argue you adhere to the same definition of objectiveness as i do?

i have stated countless times that the way you define subjectivity leaves no room for anything else. objectivity can never be achieved. and therefore you define as subjective 2 different concepts(and countless variations of those concepts)


your red example fails. i am no ...[text shortened]... ger subjective but objective. not influenced by anything. it is an exact replica of reality.

You see “red” solely because you are using your tool “red” in order to become able to conduct a specific interpretation of a specific phenomenon that you experience subjectively. The notion “red” is nothing but a conceptual way to understand and to decode a phenomenon you encountered during your interaction with the physical world. Of course “red” cannot be a separate entity of an objective world but merely a concept you utilize in order to construct a reality based on your own subjectivity.

Furthermore, I don’t claim that your table does not exist if I don’t perceive it! I claim that we cannot know “objectively” based on our experiences;



Edit: "can you... ...replica of reality."

Can you offer the notion “g=9.8 m/s*s” if you are not 100% subjectively involved with a specific scientific approach? Methinks you can offer it solely if you in person are based on a specific product of a specific scientific context. In the real world you will have difficulty to spot the object “g”. Our “g” is not a replica of the reality, it is merely our mapping of the reality as we (subjectively and biased) perceive it
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You see “red” solely because you are using your tool “red” in order to become able to conduct a specific interpretation of a specific phenomenon that you experience subjectively. The notion “red” is nothing but a conceptual way to understand and to decode a phenomenon you encountered during your interaction with the physical world. Of course “red” canno ...[text shortened]... lity, it is merely our mapping of the reality as we (subjectively and biased) perceive it
😵

yeh the last sentence made as much sense as someone saying "tomato" is not really a tomato but it is the mapping of the reality as we subjectivily and biased perceive it.

you keep saying that subjectivity is anything perceived through our senses and yet you still claim you understand my definition of objectivity. i don't think you do.

i don't have difficulty spotting the object g. it is a concept people are familiar with. objectively. from the caveman who dropped a rock on bear's head to whoever measured exactly the magnitude of the acceleration. only thing different is the degree of understanding. the fact one had more facts known about the concept. this is not bias. you seem to think that the simple act of knowing, of perceiving reality is subjective and biased. and i again mentioned that if you define it like that, you can make you claim. it is the definition that is incorrect.

i can't say that "from now on square is anything with 4 sides" and get away with it. you will undoubtetly point out that hey: there is a a 4 sided "square" with equal sides, what should we call that to distinguish it from the rest?

you keep saying reality is subjective. and your only argument about that is that you say so. this is becoming more and more similar to a discussion i would have with joseph

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yeh the last sentence made as much sense as someone saying "tomato" is not really a tomato but it is the mapping of the reality as we subjectivily and biased perceive it.

you keep saying that subjectivity is anything perceived through our senses and yet you still claim you understand my definition of objectivity. i don't think you do.

i don't have dif ...[text shortened]... ay so. this is becoming more and more similar to a discussion i would have with joseph

Edit: “yeh… …perceive it.”

Yes, the word “tomato” is just the mapping of the reality as we subjectively and biased by our 6 senses perceive it;



Edit: “you keep saying that subjectivity is anything perceived through our senses and yet you still claim you understand my definition of objectivity. i don't think you do.”

Why you think I don’t? I understand and I accept in full the definition of the word objectivity as you offered it, but I believe that objectivity cannot be achieved for the reasons I explained to you earlier;



Edit: “i don't… …incorrect.”

Methinks when you spot the object “g” strictly as a “concept people are familiar with”, you merely acknowledge that you recognize an abstract idea of ours (g, an invention of ours) that is defined by us as a “unit of our knowledge” associated with a corresponding representation of ours in a specific language of ours (Math, Physics) as a single meaning of a term regarding a phenomenon (gravity). How and by which means all this procedure is “objective”, and how did you came to spot “g” “objectively”? The concept “g” is merely a tool that we are using in order to turn our specific subjective/ mind only observations (the apple I saw falling down) into viable hypotheses and theories, so that we can visualize the inter-relationships between various concepts of ours. A concept has not inherent existence by definition, because it is nothing but a product of our mind;



Edit: “i can't say that "from now on square is anything with 4 sides" and get away with it. you will undoubtetly point out… …rest?

You cannot say it because it would be a false assumption, and it would be evaluated as such simply because we judge it according to our collectively subjective mapping of reality that we consider unrefutable;




Edit: “you keep saying reality is subjective. and your only argument about that is that you say so. this is becoming more and more similar to a discussion i would have with joseph”

Nope! Our josephw is based on his religious beliefs that he accepts them “as is”, whilst I take no thing “as is” because I conduct the evaluation of the mind. In my opinion our reality is subjective because it is strictly related to our personal cognizance -and our cognizance is not objective, my dear Platonist. If our collective subjective cognizance was indeed objective, our theories of reality would be immutable from the very first moment of our interaction with the physical world due to the fact that our observations and our products would remain the same as a result of our objectivity per se, and they would never evolve due time to perfection. In fact, the most we are getting to know, the most our reality is changing -therefore objectivity is a task impossible
😵