The philosophy thread general discussion

Wehrmacht, I caution against going down that road. Philosophers have been trying to divide human experiences in neat little "categories" for millennia, with results that were as beautiful and organized as they were useless.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I'm not the one making those distinctions, De Marquis is. I was just asking him what they were and (by proxy) why he makes those distinctions. I have no strong feelings towards classifying these types of experiences and beliefs in a meticulous fashion except that I personally don't.

I did mention the third one, personal preferences (you like pizza, I like the Mona Lisa). I do largely agree with Handles cautions (hey Handle!), and will try to abide by them.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

I do not regard my opinions as "true". (Or false, for that matter.) They're literally just opinions.

I do subconsciously "feel" that my beliefs are true, but unless I have a good amount of evidence to back them up I do my best not to think of them as such.

And most importantly, I don't expect my beliefs to have any impact on the actual, objective state of reality. I can believe in apples all I want. I can call it a "subjective truth", and be convinced of it to the point of fanaticism, but none of that changes anything. The frog is still there, so to speak.

Not to be rude or anything, but... Well, DUH!

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

I remember noticing, at a recent eye test, that one of my eyes perceived colour slightly differently from the other. I can easily imagine that "the red that I see in my brain" and "the red that another person sees in their brain" when contemplating two identical apples is different, but we agree that both apples are of the exact same shade of red.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

As far as that goes, when learning colors, you see an object and someone says, "This is red." Repeat enough times and your brain forms a distinction of what "red" is. Since you were taught from the same palette as just about everyone else, if you and another person both talk about "red", you're going to be in the same ballpark if not necessarily the exact wavelength of light. You can be fairly certain that their "red" is not your "green".

This, obviously, would not apply to individuals with color-blindness or other visual aberrations that prevent them from distinguishing colors in the same way as the majority of people. However, their experience doesn't change what "red" is, since we can empirically define it as a band of the electromagnetic spectrum centered on the 650 nm wavelength. If you see something else and call it red, you are wrong, because the consensus says so.

Now, is there such a thing as "red" objectively in nature? There is light, and there is an EM spectrum, and there's a 650 nm wavelength of that spectrum, but the concept of "red" as a distinctive band of the EM spectrum centered on 650 nm is a shared idea.

edited 5th May '16 12:29:37 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, more "conventionally" than "empirically"; for instance, I know at least one culture that doesn't distinguish "red" from "yellow, orange, golden, earthly, etc." To them, all of it is "roig". Likewise, the three basic RGB colours we use to create all others may not be what is commonly understood by the viewer to be the "central" Red, Green, or Blue, respectively. Those would be centered around aggregate perceptions of fruit and flesh, vegetation, or sky and ocean, respectively.

EDIT: Ninja'd by the third paragraph, which sums it up much more succintly.

edited 5th May '16 12:24:58 PM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Extending that a bit further, if I have the concept "red" and I talk to someone with the concept "roig", then we can arrive at an understanding with each other by comparing perceptions.

• Red Delicious apple — Me: red; You: roig
• Navel orange — Me: orange; You: roig

Aha! Now we see the breakdown in communication. I know that you think of orange and red as the same color, roig, and you know that I see two shades of roig as red and orange. Since there is an empirical world out there for us to use as a baseline, we can establish each other's perceptual universes and figure out how to communicate.

Now, if either party in this conversation is colorblind, we're going to have issues since we literally see things differently.

edited 5th May '16 1:53:13 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

This happens a lot. Russian (I think) considers what we call dark blue and light blue totally different colours.

Fighteer,

"Your line of reasoning seems to be predicated on the idea that we can never objectively, 100% know that what we are experiencing is a perfect model of reality."

Yes. More in fact, we can be pretty sure it isn't a perfect model. I sit here all day long with no choice but to ignore the trillions of neutrinos passing through my body, for example.

"Therefore, you seem to say, all statements about reality are necessarily subjective ..."

Yes. All experience is subjective. Anything contained in experience is subjective. Therefore you can't expect to escape subjectivity just because you want to feel certain about things.

"... and thus contain equivalent amounts of truth."

No. We can judge this by a number of standards. We MUST judge this if we want to live. We just can't be certain if our judgments are universal or capital T "TRUE." The best we can do is build systems upon our subjectivity. Science is a system built upon subjectivity. Any ethics is likewise a system built upon subjectivity. We can and should evaluate the logical consistency of those systems while acknowledging that they rest on a foundation of, essentially "hell, it seems to work" and whim.

"That your computer works is proof of this."

By what standard does my computer "work?"

This is what I'm talking about with dogmatic materialism basically being the art of ignoring things. You can give me all sorts of electrons and transistors and information processing, but you still need a teleology before "the computer works" makes sense. You still need ontology. You still need aesthetics.

The dogmatic materialist solves this problem by simply using prejudice to take the teleology, ontology and aesthetics for granted, all the while pretending they don't exist.

edited 5th May '16 5:31:10 PM by garridob

Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.

I'll grant you that aesthetics go into computer design, although aesthetics are entirely subjective except when they happen to dovetail with practical considerations.

But teleology? Just to be sure, I looked up the definition: "the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes". So, sure, a computer serves a purpose; it's not just a peculiar arrangement of atoms. I would have thought that was self-evident, but okay.

There's also a theological definition: "the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world". I doubt that most people who build computers thank God for creating a world that is organized in such a way as to let them build computers. Maybe they do; I don't know. I don't see how it's relevant, though. "If God didn't want us to build computers, he wouldn't have made silicon a semiconductor?"

As for ontology, certainly it would be impossible to have "computer-ness" without all the distinctions that go into our understanding of engineering, physics, materials science, communication, programming, user interfaces, aesthetics, etc. I grant you that but again don't understand why you'd consider it a cogent point when I've been stipulating it the entire time.

edited 5th May '16 6:27:24 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

All the science in the world is useless unless we use not-science to decide what my computer is for, or even more important, the engineer who made my computer decides why he is building said computer. Deciding what your goal in building a computer is, is teleology. Without it, science is empty and useless.

That the designer decided to make my computer silver and smooth instead of bright pink and covered with razor blades is an aesthetic choice. Science doesn't tell you that you shouldn't make a bright pink computer with razor blades. The purely aesthetic preference for relaxing colors and comfortable use does.

That I am classifying this plastic box as a computer and not a shovel is the reason I'm using it to communicate with you and not mess around in the garden. Unless you're a Platonic idealist who thinks the ideal "computer" actually exists in the literal world of forms, you need ontology. Actually, even if you are a Platonic idealist you need ontology.

That I'm using this computer to communicate on a philosophy discussion and not to encourage ISIS to murder Syrians is an ethical consideration. There is no scientific fact that says ISIS killing people is wrong or that discourse is good.

The point is, science is a tool. It's a good tool, but it doesn't and cannot answer everything or even most things.

edited 5th May '16 7:19:09 PM by garridob

Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.

I'm not entirely certain how you could derive from my posting that I would dispute any of those premises. But your "science doesn't answer all things, or most things" conclusion is a pretty heavy leap.

edited 5th May '16 7:19:27 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The consistent yearning for "objectivity." The idea you can derive ethics from science. The idea that it's not worth considering if it's not scientific.

Right now I'm laying on the couch and not on the bed. I'm drinking water from a bottle and not a glass. I just had brussel sprouts instead of bacon. I'm watching my tadpoles swim and ignoring my hamster. I'm talking to you and not doing a translation project.

All of that is non-scientific. I'll bet if you think about it, you're in a similar situation.

edited 5th May '16 7:22:22 PM by garridob

Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.

The last time I checked, we were discussing the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, between fact and opinion. Regardless, most of the things you listed, such as aesthetics, leisure, and whatnot, can be measured and analyzed scientifically, even if they do not describe objective things.

edited 5th May '16 7:28:39 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Scientifically, should I watch my tadpoles or my hamster?

Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.

I can't tell you which one you should watch, since that's a prescriptive statement; however, I could analyze consumption habits to see which is preferred among various demographics and then tailor my marketing strategy to maximize sales. Individual human behavior may not be predictable (well, it can be, but that's a different topic), but aggregate behavior most certainly is. We're basically habit-driven, pleasure-seeking machines. A tiny portion of our brainpower is dedicated to observing these phenomena and making smarmy, prescriptive statements about how everyone else should behave.

edited 5th May '16 9:10:57 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Exactly. Prescriptive things are pretty important. Science doesn't do prescription. Personal experiences are also important. Science doesn't do personal experiences. In fact, science is useless until put to work by something prescriptive or personal.

Analyzing the data of what people do in aggregate is only meaningful if you have an aesthetic, ethical or personal motivation to do marketing. Get rid of the executive and non-scientific functions and you've got meaningless numbers floating in space.

Great men are almost never good men, they say. One wonders what philosopher of the good would value the impotence of his disciples.

Alright, so science doesn't answer every question, or even most of them according to you. So once again I ask, which other methods should I use?

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

@Corvidae (3904): You are aware by now that you and I have different definitions of "opinion" and "knowledge". You appear to divide all ideas by whether they are objectively true (that is, they correspond to something observable in the material universe) and everything else, which you seem to regard as nothing more than "an idea in someone's head". Which isnt technically wrong, even by my definitions, but I've pointed out to you various things that would therefore be regarded as "opinions"- including our experience of space and time. If you regard your experience of 3-D space and time as mere "opinions", I am happy to regard my beliefs, including my faith in God, as an "opinion" as well.

@Fighteer- you never answered my question in post 3896. We done here?

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

@DeMarquis: I totally get that there are different levels of belief, opinion and truth in your view of the world. The only problem I had with your model is that you called two of them truth. When in my model those are not truth. They are belief. Two different types of belief. Opinions that people do not hold to be true, like cake is better than pie, are not beliefs. They are opinions. Nothing that you discuss matches my idea of truth. But I experience one of those types of belief and opinion.

@eyecolour perception: You can actually measure the exact colour of red, green and blue by dissecting an eyeball, extracting the pigments from various cells and measuring them.

As far as qualia of the colours go, however, once they pass the pigment, they are electrical signals. You might as well ask where feeling comes from.

@What a computer is: I really feel it is important to separate out what a computer is from aesthetic concerns. You, and 98% of the population think a computer is something it is not. You think the computer is the box it comes in. This is like the old belief that Computer Equals Monitor, but slightly better.

That gets rid of the aesthetic concern.

The teleological concern is harder. For the simple reason that a computer works by the logic that it does what we wanted it to do. However, we can delaminate this from the claim that computers do not work objectively by taking the designer and the computer to be a single system. The computer works in an internally self consistent manner, and therefore works objectively.

Because I don't really understand how you guys are using the word ontology, I can't respond to that one.

It's more accurate to say that I divide all ideas into "opinions" and beliefs. An idea doesn't have to be objectively true to belong in the latter category, it just needs to make sense to claim that it can be.

"I find this painting to be beautiful" is an expression of an opinion. "This painting contains 500 milli-beauties" is a belief. "Roughly eight out of ten people like this painting", is also a belief, but might have more evidence supporting it than the former.

I occasionally use "truth" and "knowledge" as shorthands, but I wouldn't honestly claim to "know" anything for sure. I consider different beliefs to have different amounts of likelihood to be true, based on how much evidence I can find, but that's it.

edited 6th May '16 7:18:26 AM by Corvidae

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

De Marquis:

Semantically moving the goalposts? Subjective and relative do not mean the same thing. All I'm getting from your line of argument is that you want to carve out a paradigm in which your beliefs can be labeled as truth by virtue of the fact that you believe they are true. Clearly, if that's where you want to go with this, then we are done here, since we're never going to agree.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I see you carefully avoid using any of the examples I discussed in your list. I dont feel we are getting anywhere.

edited 6th May '16 7:26:12 AM by DeMarquis

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

The conversation moved quite a bit, and I'm not sure exactly which thing you want me to reply to. Is it this?

I never suggested that a belief cannot describe a real thing. You can believe that the thing in front of you is a chair. If it is, in fact, a chair, then the following pertain:

• You have a belief.
• Your belief describes reality with a sufficient degree of accuracy.

If it is not a chair, then you have a belief, and that belief does not accurately describe reality. Your belief does not create a reality in which the chair exists. If you try to sit on this false chair, it won't behave like a chair.

Now, we can have beliefs about subjective things. "I believe that happiness is good." Is good is a subjective statement, because "good" is not a property that can be demonstrated empirically. (Happiness, on the other hand, is an emotion that can be traced to specific chemical interactions in the brain, so you can define and measure it.) So...

• You have a belief.
• Your belief cannot be empirically true or false, since there is no way to measure it.
• Your belief can be agreed upon, which makes it true by consensus.
• Only beliefs about subjective things can become true or false by consensus.
• Consensus can be empirically measured.

Note that it makes no sense to use the consensus method to analyze empirical beliefs, nor does it make sense to use the empirical method to analyze subjective beliefs, unless what one is analyzing is people's agreement with the belief. What it seems like, however, is that you want to be able to stake out a space in between these two where you can have a belief that makes a factual statement (my sensation of God comes from an actual thing out there in existence) and label it "true" in the absence of evidence because you believe in it really hard.

edited 6th May '16 9:36:47 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"