Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Detached9 · 04-11-2002, 11:58 PM

I'm not looking to absolutely prove anything, I guess I didn't make that clear at the begin.

"By prove, I don't mean absolutely prove, by the way." I did include this, a few posts down though.

***
Is this a sound argument?

Everyone perceives object X slightly differently than other people. If one perceives object X then object X exists (if it didn't exist, it would not be able to be perceived). Therefore, object X exists.

I don't think I can objectively describe what object X looks like due to the subjective nature of perception, but by perceiving object X, you are placing credence that object X exists.

Is it objectively true that object X exists?
***

Adrian Selby · 04-12-2002, 01:50 AM

Roger Trigg, Reason and Commitment
Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity

Two books that off the top of my head go over the ground mentioned.

Adrian

Bill · 04-12-2002, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dostf:
Science is an expression of human study. Without human there is no science to verify your assertion.

Objective truth does not depend upon verification. Again, whatever is objectively true exists without perception, verification, or any other external frames of reference.

== Bill

Ted Hoffman · 04-12-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Is this a sound argument?

Everyone perceives object X slightly differently than other people. If one perceives object X then object X exists (if it didn't exist, it would not be able to be perceived). Therefore, object X exists.

I don't think I can objectively describe what object X looks like due to the subjective nature of perception, but by perceiving object X, you are placing credence that object X exists.

Is it objectively true that object X exists?

No it is not objectively true. It has been unanimously agreed that object X exists - in the particular form that it takes. That does not make the existence of object x an objective fact.

Just because an object can be perceived does not mean it DOES exist as it is being perceived.

Two men stand at a shore. They look at the see into the distant horizon. All they can see is water.
They call the village elder who comes with the whole village. They all gaze at the distance and decide that the sea marks the edge/ end of the world. Because they cannot see anything beyond the water.
That is what they perceived.
Is it objectively true that the sea marks the edge of the earth?

Early scientists tinkered with their microscopes and decided that an atom is the smallest particle that exists. It was considered objective truth.

Objective truth may exist. I dont believe we have the capacity to determine what is is because of our limited perception.

Everything we treat as a fact is subjective. Most are widely accepted because they "work". We can repeat tests and find the same consistent results. But even our instruments are just as good as we can make them. Our testing approaches may be flawed.
But since we find them adequate, for our purposes, and they "work". We have no reason to disbelieve what we see/ observe.

That does not mean what we see/ observe is the objective truth.

For example there is the VIBGYOR for the colours that we can observe. But we know now that there are millions of colours. And that is what our machines can "detect" so far.

Imperfect machines from imperfect beings.

I think evolution gave us just what we need to exist in this hostile earth.

Maybe the objective truth can make us lose our minds. Maybe there are dead people walking around with open wounds all over.

Maybe nothing exists except the mind as solipsists assert.

Detached9 · 04-12-2002, 09:09 AM

Just because an object can be perceived does not mean it DOES exist as it is being perceived.

I never claimed it did. Strawman? As I claimed, perception is largely subjective, but by perceiving object X, this does mean that object X exists, but we may not be entirely sure what object X looks like.

Regarding your sea example, they all observe a sea, or a large body of water. The sea objectively exists, but whether it marks the edge of the planet, whether it is a dark blue or what have you, is subjective; how the sea appears to the viewer is based on perception.

That's how I would argue that one.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]

pug846 · 04-12-2002, 10:33 AM

Tom Piper said:

Quote:

So is it a consequence of your view (in your last post) that you may not understand a word I am saying in this post because you can't be certain that I am using these words in ways that are completely unlike the way you use them

I have a pretty good idea at what you are saying, but I�m not certain that the message you intended to convey was in fact conveyed. This seems to be part of the problem with language; How do you know that you are following the right rules? I agree with Kripke and don�t think there is anyway out of the skeptic�s paradox, but I just don�t see it as a problem. Care to explain why exactly this is a problem, why I need to be certain about what you meant by each of your words to get anything out of your message and finally, if my view is so problematic, how you would avoid it?

snatchbalance · 04-12-2002, 12:14 PM

I don't know, "true" objectivity aside, reality, as we know it, seems to be a matter of agreement.

Two men look into a room, one sees a chair, the other dosen't. In the absence of any other confirmatory evidence, how do you know which one, or if either one, is right? add a third man who sees a chair, the presence of the chair seems more likely. Some goes and sits in it, more likely still, Etc.

Objectively, the chair may or may not exist. Until enough people agree on the evidence, one way or the other, the question is moot.

As an aside, is it possible that our senses do provide an acurate(objective), picture of reality?
I mean, when we say that something is green, what other possibilty is there?

I realise that this is a certain waveform, or a photon with a certain energy level, that through various phsical pathways, produces the mental image we call "green". but for our purposes,isn't this objective? There dosen't seem to be any probabilty associated with it. For allintents and purposes, if we say it's green, then it's green. I mean we all might be agreeing on the "truth".

Of course, problems would arise if a "yellow" contigent became strong enough. Then again, the "yellows" may be viewing the "green" source from a different prespective. So who's to say who's right?

Objectivity is like a perfect triangle, I can draw one in my head right now, but I have no way of knowing if I did it right or not.

Just rambling away here.

Snatchbalance

Detached9 · 04-12-2002, 12:29 PM

Two men look into a room, one sees a chair, the other dosen't. In the absence of any other confirmatory evidence, how do you know which one, or if either one, is right? add a third man who sees a chair, the presence of the chair seems more likely. Someone goes and sits in it, more likely still, Etc.

How about you direct the person who can't see the chair to the place where you think the chair is. Then tell them to try to sit on the floor (since there is no chair according to this person). If the chair exists independent of our minds, he won't be able to sit on the floor.

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]

Bill · 04-12-2002, 02:31 PM

While I will be the first to admit that "absolute certainty of knowledge" cannot be achieved by humans, there are many objective facts which have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If we take the example of the primitives standing on the shoreline, even a primitive philosopher should have found reason to doubt that the horizon line marked the actual edge of the Earth. After all, nobody had actually gone out to the edge to investigate it. But in our time, we have been to all of the edges of the Earth, and it is no longer reasonable to doubt that the Earth objectively exists as a ball-shaped object orbiting in space around the Sun. I believe that you could make a legitimate accusation of "insane delusions" towards any person who honestly asserted that this fact ("that the Earth objectively exists as a ball-shaped object orbiting in space around the Sun") is not objectively true. The coincidental fact that there are many areas of knowledge where humans are clearly lacking in understanding or perception capabilities does not detract from the fact that we do know certain things beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, for me, one way that "Progress" can be defined is through measurements of the increases in the amount of knowledge which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We clearly know far more today than would those primitives on the beach so long ago. And I would assert that the agreed base of common knowledge which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt has vastly expanded over the past few decades, and it is continuing to expand over time in the present and future. We have only to recognize what has been adequately proven for us to be able to grasp the present as our foothold into the future.

== Bill

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]

dostf · 04-12-2002, 06:46 PM

pug846:

Are you denying that there is an objective truth? [QUOTE] pug

I was not defining my position here, merely asserting that from detached9 statement one would conclude that objective truth exists.

Bill:

Objective truth does not depend upon verification. Again, whatever is objectively true exists without perception, verification, or any other external frames of reference.[QUOTE]- Bill

"objective truth" without verification is called "belief"-religious theology is a good example of this.

04-12-2002, 09:09 AM	#15
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	Just because an object can be perceived does not mean it DOES exist as it is being perceived. I never claimed it did. Strawman? As I claimed, perception is largely subjective, but by perceiving object X, this does mean that object X exists, but we may not be entirely sure what object X looks like. Regarding your sea example, they all observe a sea, or a large body of water. The sea objectively exists, but whether it marks the edge of the planet, whether it is a dark blue or what have you, is subjective; how the sea appears to the viewer is based on perception. That's how I would argue that one. [ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ] [ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

04-12-2002, 12:29 PM	#18
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	Two men look into a room, one sees a chair, the other dosen't. In the absence of any other confirmatory evidence, how do you know which one, or if either one, is right? add a third man who sees a chair, the presence of the chair seems more likely. Someone goes and sits in it, more likely still, Etc. How about you direct the person who can't see the chair to the place where you think the chair is. Then tell them to try to sit on the floor (since there is no chair according to this person). If the chair exists independent of our minds, he won't be able to sit on the floor. [ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Detached9 ]</p>

04-12-2002, 02:31 PM	#19
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	While I will be the first to admit that "absolute certainty of knowledge" cannot be achieved by humans, there are many objective facts which have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If we take the example of the primitives standing on the shoreline, even a primitive philosopher should have found reason to doubt that the horizon line marked the actual edge of the Earth. After all, nobody had actually gone out to the edge to investigate it. But in our time, we have been to all of the edges of the Earth, and it is no longer reasonable to doubt that the Earth objectively exists as a ball-shaped object orbiting in space around the Sun. I believe that you could make a legitimate accusation of "insane delusions" towards any person who honestly asserted that this fact ("that the Earth objectively exists as a ball-shaped object orbiting in space around the Sun") is not objectively true. The coincidental fact that there are many areas of knowledge where humans are clearly lacking in understanding or perception capabilities does not detract from the fact that we do know certain things beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, for me, one way that "Progress" can be defined is through measurements of the increases in the amount of knowledge which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We clearly know far more today than would those primitives on the beach so long ago. And I would assert that the agreed base of common knowledge which has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt has vastly expanded over the past few decades, and it is continuing to expand over time in the present and future. We have only to recognize what has been adequately proven for us to be able to grasp the present as our foothold into the future. == Bill [ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2002, 11:58 PM	#11
Detached9 Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 341	I'm not looking to absolutely prove anything, I guess I didn't make that clear at the begin. "By prove, I don't mean absolutely prove, by the way." I did include this, a few posts down though. * Is this a sound argument? Everyone perceives object X slightly differently than other people. If one perceives object X then object X exists (if it didn't exist, it would not be able to be perceived). Therefore, object X exists. I don't think I can objectively describe what object X looks like due to the subjective nature of perception, but by perceiving object X, you are placing credence that object X exists. Is it objectively true that object X exists? *

04-12-2002, 01:50 AM	#12
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	Roger Trigg, Reason and Commitment Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity Two books that off the top of my head go over the ground mentioned. Adrian

04-12-2002, 12:14 PM	#17
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	I don't know, "true" objectivity aside, reality, as we know it, seems to be a matter of agreement. Two men look into a room, one sees a chair, the other dosen't. In the absence of any other confirmatory evidence, how do you know which one, or if either one, is right? add a third man who sees a chair, the presence of the chair seems more likely. Some goes and sits in it, more likely still, Etc. Objectively, the chair may or may not exist. Until enough people agree on the evidence, one way or the other, the question is moot. As an aside, is it possible that our senses do provide an acurate(objective), picture of reality? I mean, when we say that something is green, what other possibilty is there? I realise that this is a certain waveform, or a photon with a certain energy level, that through various phsical pathways, produces the mental image we call "green". but for our purposes,isn't this objective? There dosen't seem to be any probabilty associated with it. For allintents and purposes, if we say it's green, then it's green. I mean we all might be agreeing on the "truth". Of course, problems would arise if a "yellow" contigent became strong enough. Then again, the "yellows" may be viewing the "green" source from a different prespective. So who's to say who's right? Objectivity is like a perfect triangle, I can draw one in my head right now, but I have no way of knowing if I did it right or not. Just rambling away here. Snatchbalance

04-12-2002, 06:46 PM	#20
dostf Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: toronto canada Posts: 498	pug846: Are you denying that there is an objective truth? [QUOTE] pug I was not defining my position here, merely asserting that from detached9 statement one would conclude that objective truth exists. Bill: Objective truth does not depend upon verification. Again, whatever is objectively true exists without perception, verification, or any other external frames of reference.[QUOTE]- Bill "objective truth" without verification is called "belief"-religious theology is a good example of this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.