It seems subjectivity is incoherent... attack this argument!

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: xts3
Originally posted by: TuxDave
"There was nothing, and nothing derived itself from nothing". I have no problems of having nothing come out of nothing... :confused:

You're concept of empty space here is the problem, you derive the concept of nothing from empty space, but space-exists as a kind of volumetric surface of a kind. (if you don't believe this see, light bending experiments, frame dragging, and gravitational lensing), you can't bend an non-existent surface.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

I know what gravitational lensing is. How did "nothing derives from nothing" in the most abstract sense turn into "gee, you're wrong, see look there's gravitational lensing?" What did I say that implied space = non-existance. Really, can't you see that you are actually putting words into my mouth and arguing against it? It's like... arguing against yourself or something.

o_O



 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I don't think E=mc^2 means what you think it does. It means that each unit mass m is equivalent to energy E divided by c^2. This doesn't tell us anything about the present problem.

Actually it does, because again we have the detection problem: i.e. you can observe, modify and detect your own thoughts. You still haven't dealt with this objection to your obejction.

How do you deal with the detection contradiction? If what you say is true the implications are we have no method of detecting anything through our sense from the outside world with our mind.

Thus, I still challenge the notion that thoughts are made of energy.

Again the problem with your challenge is detection: How do we detect if something is hot, how do we observe our own thoughts, and most importantly, if light is not converted to a form of thought (through our eyes), then how can we see? therein lies the rub to your objection, now you have the problem of not being able to function. i.e. your objection necessarily implies we can't sense anything.


We are very adept at measuring all forms of energy, if only implicitly (e.g. gravitational energy). Yet we have not been able to detect any form of energy that might be related to thought.

But this is the whole problem, if energy is energy, you're implying (at least thats how I am reading it) that there is something else other then energy that is not energy. Are you?
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: TuxDave
I know what gravitational lensing is. How did "nothing derives from nothing" in the most abstract sense turn into "gee, you're wrong, see look there's gravitational lensing?" What did I say that implied space = non-existance. Really, can't you see that you are actually putting words into my mouth and arguing against it? It's like... arguing against yourself or something.

o_O

My apologies, here is the argument in it's lowest terms before I got bogged down in extraneous stuff, restated from a previous reply:

"Can energy dispossess itself of the property of being objective? The whole argument boils down to that. E=MC2, and everything is made of energy, then how can you have 'subjective energy' you're applying a property to something that is by nature objective all the time, this is the issue.

Here's what I mean, everything is made of energy, but yet your thoughts are made of energy, and your perceptions are merely forms of thought (i.e. they are thoughts, otherwise you couldn't perceive them, think of them, modify them, detect them, etc). Yet in the real world, they are all made of energy, you can't have 'subjective energy'"

 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: xts3
My apologies, here is the argument in it's lowest terms before I got bogged down in extraneous stuff, restated from a previous reply:

"Can energy dispossess itself of the property of being objective? The whole argument boils down to that. E=MC2, and everything is made of energy, then how can you have 'subjective energy' you're applying a property to something that is by nature objective all the time, this is the issue.

Here's what I mean, everything is made of energy, but yet your thoughts are made of energy, and your perceptions are merely forms of thought (i.e. they are thoughts, otherwise you couldn't perceive them, think of them, modify them, detect them, etc). Yet in the real world, they are all made of energy, you can't have 'subjective energy'"

I think somewhere up above someone argued against your idea that "objective" = "real/existing" = "truth". You then conclude that thoughts are real and therefore all thoughts are objective. (kind of like begging the question). If thoughts do have physical manifestations, (some neuron pattern or whatever), they are real but does being "real" imply they also must be objective? If someone thinks the 3=5 and someone else thinks 3!=5, what happens to the whole association with "truth" and "existance"? Something breaks with your initial assumption. The subject exists, the thought exists, the properties of the subject is true but the thoughts of the subject may be not always hold true.
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: TuxDave

If thoughts do have physical manifestations, (some neuron pattern or whatever), they are real but does being "real" imply they also must be objective?[/i]

Define real if you're using a different definition then the one below, don't put the "scare quotes" around it. Real and objective are synonymous, or simply ismorphic. They are two different names for the same concept.

Main Entry: real
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: Having verifiable existence.
Synonyms: concrete, objective, substantial, substantive, tangible


 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Part #2 - Note: I'm dealing with them seperately just to make things easier to point out and reply to

Originally posted by: TuxDave
...
If someone thinks the 3=5 and someone else thinks 3!=5, what happens to the whole association with "truth" and "existance"?

He's not changing the definitions, he's using 3 as a symbol for 5, when you say 3 = 5, what are you meaning? What do you mean when "someone else thinks 3=5", i.e. technically 3 can not equal 5 in the ultimate sense, but you can use "3" to represent 5 as a symbol. As long as someone has told you they're using it as a substitute.

In your example, 3 "=" 5, you'd have to explain what you mean by equal. Now say I use the symbol 3, to represent the concept 5, as long as I define it, there is no contradiction. Say we have 3+3 (the 3's are merely substitutes symbols refering to concept of the number 5) = 10, (meaning is actually 5+5)

Something breaks with your initial assumption. The subject exists, the thought exists, the properties of the subject is true but the thoughts of the subject may be not always hold true.

You' havent' sorted out your own thoughts yet, the subject exists in what way, is the subject seperate from the universe, or merely a distinct part of the same surface of the universe?

i.e. we have a surface, part of the "paper" (it is not paper, I'm using paper as a substitute for a universal surface) is black, part of it is white, but they are the same thing, i.e. black and white are merely distinct aspects of the surface itself, black is not "seperate" (literally divided) from white, black and white are inherent in the surface.
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Originally posted by: xts3
Originally posted by: TuxDave

If thoughts do have physical manifestations, (some neuron pattern or whatever), they are real but does being "real" imply they also must be objective?[/i]

Define real if you're using a different definition then the one below, don't put the "scare quotes" around it. Real and objective are synonymous, or simply ismorphic. They are two different names for the same concept.

Main Entry: real
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: Having verifiable existence.
Synonyms: concrete, objective, substantial, substantive, tangible

I'd like to note that the English language is full of self-contradiction. I find I find it better to declare definitions in stone before using it. If we keep referring to the dictionary and keep clicking on the thesaurus option you can eventually get cow = dog. So I wouldn't rely on a thesaurus of synonyms.

I have been using "real" as "having existance".
 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
He's not changing the definitions, he's using 3 as a symbol for 5, when you say 3 = 5, what are you meaning? What do you mean when "someone else thinks 3=5", i.e. technically 3 can not equal 5 in the ultimate sense, but you can use "3" to represent 5 as a symbol. As long as someone has told you they're using it as a substitute.

In your example, 3 "=" 5, you'd have to explain what you mean by equal. Now say I use the symbol 3, to represent the concept 5, as long as I define it, there is no contradiction. Say we have 3+3 (the 3's are merely substitutes symbols refering to concept of the number 5) = 10, (meaning is actually 5+5)

You say they cannot be equal in the ultimate sense. So if a person thinks 3=5 and his definition of 3, 5 and = are identical to your definitions, yet he still thinks it, what then? The thought exists. Yet if all of the definitions are the same, then he's clearly wrong right? Do you think it's possible for thoughts to be false?

You' havent' sorted out your own thoughts yet, the subject exists in what way, is the subject seperate from the universe, or merely a distinct part of the same surface of the universe?

To clarify, the subject is not separate from the universe. It is a distinct part of the same surface of the universe. Your thought about the subject is another distinct prat of the same surface of the universe. The thought exists, but the thought is false.

It is possible for things that exist to be incorrect about other things that exist in the same surface of the universe. I guess I wonder if you believe in the concept of things being false or is everything true in your opinion.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: xts3
Actually it does, because again we have the detection problem: i.e. you can observe, modify and detect your own thoughts. You still haven't dealt with this objection to your obejction.
Your objection is nonsensical. My ability to observe, modify, and detect something with thoughts does not prove that the thoughts are any form or combination of matter or energy. If thoughts are energy or matter, then it would take energy or matter to operate on them. However, whether or not thoughts are energy is still unproven. This is problematic because, as I have stated ten times before, it is the premise of your entire argument. Until you can address the possibility that thoughts might not be energy, we are at an impasse. So yes, I posit that thoughts could very well be comprised of something other than matter and energy. I have no clue what it is, but that is irrelevant. Since thoughts=energy is the premise of your argument, the burden of proof is on you.
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: xts3
Actually it does, because again we have the detection problem: i.e. you can observe, modify and detect your own thoughts. You still haven't dealt with this objection to your obejction.

Your objection is nonsensical. My ability to observe, modify, and detect something with thoughts does not prove that the thoughts are any form or combination of matter or energy

You're not seeing your error here, you can't detect anything unless two things reverberate, and you can detect this. How do you detect a surface that is in front of you with your hand? i.e. you have to touch the wall to know it is there, with our eyes light does the 'touching' for us, i.e. the light bounces off the wall and our eyes receive it, so we know it is there. Ever tried to navigate in the dark? very hard because you can't detect where you're going very well. You're statement makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever you're misunderstanding when you observe something, you use an instrument, cast a ray, through a ball, whatever, and get a signal back, i.e. a feedback ring. You can't have a feedback ring to non-existent entities, you're claiming your thoughts aren't made of energy, sorry but I could bring up tonnes of studies that demonstrate that his is the case (brain damage, etc)

Down the rabbit whole we go, you're contradicting yourself and you don't know it. Ask yourself the question: What is observation and how does it really work? You're not understanding the physical process of observation, i.e. how it works in the real world.

 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: TuxDave

You say they cannot be equal in the ultimate sense.

Yes because the statement hasn't been defined, in your example of "3=5", if someone says they think that, that doesn't mean they actually do. For instance we've all made statements we didn't really mean right? Same principle.

So if a person thinks 3=5 and his definition of 3, 5 and = are identical to your definitions, yet he still thinks it, what then?

Think it out logically using geometry, all you need to do is imagine it as it would be in reality

i.e. 3 apples, vs 5 apples, if someone tried to tell you "5 bucks equals 3 bucks in my money therefore I'm not giving you your 2 dollars change" you know he's merely lying.

Always transport your example to the world, just because someone has the image of something, doesn't mean they are referring to meaning, when you say "think" you really mean think of a symbol, but more importantly, until symbols have been defined, you wouldn't know what "the person" in your example was saying. Therefore you'd have to ask him: What do you mean 3 = 5? because in actuality he is merely referring to representational symbols, he has not yet stated their meaning.

So the answer is simply: when a person says "I think 3 = 5" that person is merely referring to representations, not meaning (content),.

The thought exists. Yet if all of the definitions are the same, then he's clearly wrong right?

Explained above he is merely referring to symbols, not the meaning. We do this all the time when we say we "think this" or "think that", we refer to symbols but not content.

You' havent' sorted out your own thoughts yet, the subject exists in what way, is the subject seperate from the universe, or merely a distinct part of the same surface of the universe?

To clarify, the subject is not separate from the universe.

Ok but do you understand this? This is exactly what I've been saying but I'm not sure we're referring to the same meaning.

It is a distinct part of the same surface of the universe.

No problems here.

Your thought about the subject is another distinct prat of the same surface of the universe. The thought exists, but the thought is false.

And?? a falsehood is just an incorrect truth, i.e. if I have two shapes I am comparing (are these two shapes equal), and one shape is not the same (circle vs triangle), the falsehood still exists, i.e. when doing certain truth comparisons we can use only representation, i.e. red is not blue, etc in a picture when we look at shapes, we don't have to define their meaning, there meanings are already pre-defined.

It is possible for things that exist to be incorrect about other things that exist in the same surface of the universe.

Yes, when you realize, an incorrect thing, is merely representation, i.e. I make an impression (stamp) of a circle in the sand then I make a nother impression (a triangle)

Then do the comparison, are these shapes the same? yes/no. There's your example

I guess I wonder if you believe in the concept of things being false or is everything true in your opinion.

You're starting to understand, a falsehood is a mis-shapen truth , i.e. the concept of "falseness" can be reinterpreted as merely incorrect truth, that is, a mismatched pattern, two circles both exist, one circle is a half circle, they have partial congruence in geometry, or simply partial equality depending on what the comparison operators are.

Otherwise stories would be "false", something is only "false" when you do comparisons, but we are only comparing representations, not meaning got it? i.e. we use substitution.

You're starting to understand.

 

TuxDave

Lifer
Oct 8, 2002
10,571
3
71
Well, I'm beginning to understand what's going on in your head. But that's nothing close to me thinking you're right.

If I had to describe the situation, you are basically giving a mis-shapen truth. You have a very specific way that you'd like to describe and define things that basically says 3=5. And when we're trying to tell you what 3 is and 5 is and how it's not equal to each other, you continue reiterating your representation of 3 and 5. That's probably the most frustrating part of this whole discussion. I think for me, the topic at hand as reached the end of my curiousity because I see that it basically goes no where.

If I too wish to declare things all true depending on how you define things, and then tell you how to define things to make it true, I gain no information in the whole exchange.
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: TuxDave
Well, I'm beginning to understand what's going on in your head. But that's nothing close to me thinking you're right.

If I had to describe the situation, you are basically giving a mis-shapen truth.

Yes that's because stuff in the real world has actual structural geometry, we are comparing actual stuff, hence the term misshapen truth.

You have a very specific way that you'd like to describe and define things that basically says 3=5.

You're being way too vague, point what words are misdefined, I told you he was using 3 as a referent, to the concept, you've totally misunderstood again. The symbol 5 doesn't have to refer to the actual concept behind the notation we could refer to 5 in binary or hexadecimal, my point was just because the symbol looks like 5, doesn't mean that's how a person is using it. This point was totally missed or you wouldn't have said that.

And when we're trying to tell you what 3 is and 5 is and how it's not equal to each other, you continue reiterating your representation of 3 and 5.

Again we're talking about the real world here not SYMBOLS for the actual meaning of numbers, you're confused again. i.e. 3 and 5 in the real world you are still thinking "inside your head", i.e. 3 apples and 5 apples are clearly not the same amount in the real world, when you think just using your inner world the relationships are clouded, imagine what they are outside. This was the whole point of me referencing geometry, in the real world, the world is actually made of geometeric shapes and patterns and surfaces that physically objectively exist.

That's probably the most frustrating part of this whole discussion. I think for me, the topic at hand as reached the end of my curiousity because I see that it basically goes no where.

Ahh so now we're back to square one: You don't understand what I've said, you've claimed by definitions are redefined, yet can't point them out, so you have no claim. That is the only answer, unless you can point out the words that are misdefined, since you claim they are there, they have to be there.

I'll state it again because you went way off track and didn't deal with what you were supposed to be:

Here's what I mean, everything is made of energy, but yet your thoughts are made of energy, and your perceptions are merely forms of thought (i.e. they are thoughts, otherwise you couldn't perceive them, think of them, modify them, detect them, etc). Yet in the real world, they are all made of energy, you can't have 'subjective energy'
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: xts3
You're not seeing your error here, you can't detect anything unless two things reverberate, and you can detect this. How do you detect a surface that is in front of you with your hand? i.e. you have to touch the wall to know it is there, with our eyes light does the 'touching' for us, i.e. the light bounces off the wall and our eyes receive it, so we know it is there. Ever tried to navigate in the dark? very hard because you can't detect where you're going very well. You're statement makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever you're misunderstanding when you observe something, you use an instrument, cast a ray, through a ball, whatever, and get a signal back, i.e. a feedback ring.
I know a good deal about feedback loops. I also know that you are again assuming that thoughts are energy because, in your limited experience in the sensory world, matter/energy interactions are what you are familiar with. Sensory transduction is the process of converting one form of energy to another. This does not mean that all interactions must share this commonality.
You can't have a feedback ring to non-existent entities, you're claiming your thoughts aren't made of energy, sorry but I could bring up tonnes of studies that demonstrate that his is the case (brain damage, etc)
Please bring up these studies.
Down the rabbit whole we go, you're contradicting yourself and you don't know it. Ask yourself the question: What is observation and how does it really work? You're not understanding the physical process of observation, i.e. how it works in the real world.
Observation is based on transduction. I have built several novel transducers in the past couple years and worked with biotransducers. And you're right - in all of these transducers, energy is converted from one form to another. However, that does not imply that all transduction must occur in this fashion.

edit: I'll also add a possible counter-example. Depending on your concept of "objective," the sensing of colors by someone who is colorblind can actually receive incorrect data from his eyes. His brain may interpret a photon of a certain wavelength as having a different wavelength, depending on the context.
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I know a good deal about feedback loops. I also know that you are again assuming that thoughts are energy because, in your limited experience in the sensory world, matter/energy interactions are what you are familiar with. Sensory transduction is the process of converting one form of energy to another. This does not mean that all interactions must share this commonality.

Look at what you said though:"Your objection is nonsensical. My ability to observe, modify, and detect something with thoughts does not prove that the thoughts are any form or combination of matter or energy"

Here is the definition of transduction (biology): the transformation of sensory stimulus energy into a cellular signal, such as a receptor potential. Seems to me, yes thoughts are made of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_potential

The problem I have with your objection to my assumption thoughts are energy, is that one can use ones mind to imagine, that is, induce sensory images, etc. When you imagine something it has to be made out of something.

You missed what I meant when I said you can detect your own imagined thoughts, i.e. you can use your imagination internally to generate thoughts, you can't exactly imagine something and not use something to make it, right? That is what I meant by observe, detect, and modify your own thoughts, when you think of speaking something, you generate using your mind first, and then express it to the outside world. You're making patterns of data and then expressing them (i.e. sending eletricial (energy) signals to your muscles, etc).

Observation is based on transduction.

Transduction: the transformation of sensory stimulus energy into a cellular signal, such as a receptor potential.

Depending on your concept of "objective," the sensing of colors by someone who is colorblind can actually receive incorrect data from his eyes. His brain may interpret a photon of a certain wavelength as having a different wavelength, depending on the context.

Again with "your concept of objective", I am not using a different concept of objective, in fact I've been researching this, apparently the objectivity of science is still a hot area of debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

About color, this does not mean the actual core meaning of color does not exist (the actual wavelength), what you're talking about is signal corruption or attenuation in the nerve, or structural corruption -- i.e. when someone damages the lense of an eye or a camera (i.e. the condensor/detector). We can take a picture and perform a blur or distort function on it in photoshop, your comment doesn't say anything useful are meaningful in relation to my argument. You're just moving the goal post from sensory information, to sensory detector. You can't detect something that is not there by definition, therefore it simply must be a distortion, that is the only answer. You can't interpret, sense, or feel, what you can't detect by necessity, this is the whole nature of the detection objectionto your counterclaim that "thoughts are not energy", even if they weren't you'd still have a something that is there, that is objectively detectable by you organs (a surface of a kind), so claiming they are not energy does not do any good because something real is actually there to detect.

(Paraphrasing) Where's the evidence?

When you get the time, watch this all the way through, you said you wanted evidence, but the evidence will take time to digest. So I hope you're up for it. :p

http://www.linktv.org/video/2142

Earlier work
http://www.amazon.com/Metaphor...-Lakoff/dp/0226468011/

Later work
http://www.amazon.com/Philosop...Western/dp/0465056741/

Also check out the reviews for mentioning of studies, and works, etc.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: xts3
Here is the definition of transduction (biology): the transformation of sensory stimulus energy into a cellular signal, such as a receptor potential. Seems to me, yes thoughts are made of energy.
The raw action potentials sent to your brain are energy-based, no doubt about it. However, I still don't see where this implies that the thoughts, which we may consider as operators, are energy-based. I can and have measured the energy of an action potential. I have not (nor has anyone else, to my knowledge) measured the energy of a thought.
The problem I have with your objection to my assumption thoughts are energy, is that one can use ones mind to imagine, that is, induce sensory images, etc. When you imagine something it has to be made out of something.
Why does it have to be made out of something? This is just your assumption, which has arisen because of your approach to the problem. I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that it has not been demonstrated that you're right.
Again with "your concept of objective", I am not using a different concept of objective, in fact I've been researching this, apparently the objectivity of science is still a hot area of debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
A strict Bayesian would argue that science can never be objective, and they would be right. We cannot model anything without bringing priors (experiences and interpretations) into the fray. This is not the sense of objective that I thought we were discussing. There are many possible interpretations of "objective," so perhaps you should be a little more specific.
About color, this does not mean the actual core meaning of color does not exist (the actual wavelength), what you're talking about is signal corruption or attenuation in the nerve, or structural corruption -- i.e. when someone damages the lense of an eye or a camera (i.e. the condensor/detector). We can take a picture and perform a blur or distort function on it in photoshop, your comment doesn't say anything useful are meaningful in relation to my argument. You're just moving the goal post from sensory information, to sensory detector. You can't detect something that is not there by definition, therefore it simply must be a distortion, that is the only answer. You can't interpret, sense, or feel, what you can't detect by necessity, this is the whole nature of the detection objection that to your counterclaim that "thoughts are not energy", even if they weren't you'd still have a something that is there, that is objectively detectable by you organs (a surface of a kind), so claiming they are not energy does not good because something real is actually there to detect.
Like I said, I'm apparently not understanding what you mean by "objective." I thought previously that you had stated "objective" doesn't simply mean "exists." There is little doubt that thoughts exist. If instead we take "objective" to mean observable without errors due to perception or bias, then the result of the color blindness example is completely different. At least one form of color blindness is caused by the absence of one of three photopigments. Since there is overlap in the absorption spectra of the three photopigments found in a normal eye, the brain maps the signals from these colors and displays them in your "mind's eye."

Even in two people with normal eyes, the interpretation may be different. If I observe a photon with a wavelength of 500 nm, I might see it as "green." What you see at 600 nm might appear the same to you as 500 nm does to me. Thus, while the photon has an objective property (wavelength), its interpretation by the brain is arbitrary and, therefore, subjective. This reduces the original question to a philosophical question rather than one of science, since we can never objectively measure the brain's interpretation of a wavelength of light, a taste, a scent, a sound, or a touch.
 

F1shF4t

Golden Member
Oct 18, 2005
1,583
1
71
I've skipped to the end after page 3, so might have missed something.

OP as far as I see the biggest problem here is the definition of the frame of refrence.

Say for example:
Univerce = set of {1,2,3,4,5}
In this definition 6 cannot not exist as its not part of the univerce.

if you = {1,2}
and me = {3,4}

when you come up with 3, in your frame of refrence it is subjective, to me it is objective because it is part of me, right?
In refrence to the univerce it is objetive as it is part of it and exists.

Defining 3=5 is not subjective because the person defining and believing this would have had a number of real experiances to show that this is true.
The only reason we define 3 as three things in the first place is because we have been shown to do that from real experiance. This has no refrence to how valid definition of 3 is in the first place. As far as I see this has no impact on the argument.


Pretty much as far as I see it, eventially at its final level your defining the statement that matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed just changed in a different state, shape etc. Since everything has to come from previous existance.


Anyways thought i'll throw my thought into the mix :p
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: Nathelion
Multiple accounts is against the forum rules. Just putting that out there *cough*.

I know if you've been following the thread you'd know why, find my post beneath "gannon", it's right there, it was an accident and I didn't realize I started my post with the wrong user (saves passwords/cookies and all that).

My apologies I didn't realize when I started the topic! :p

I figured I mine as well finish it with this account before I ask to get it deleted/whatever just to remain consistent and make the thread easier to follow.
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
I've skipped to the end after page 3, so might have missed something.

You did miss a hell of a lot I answered your objections already, please read everything or don't reply because I'm not going to answer, I got enough to deal with :p
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The raw action potentials sent to your brain are energy-based, no doubt about it. However, I still don't see where this implies that the thoughts, which we may consider as operators, are energy-based.

Ugh... you totally missed the point, the rest of your post breaks down because you've admited they are energy based, when you feel softness or hardness that is a form of thought that has to be transmitted to your brain via energy, it's over now.

Your whole problem is with the misunderstanding of thoughts, all of your perceptions are forms of thought.

Almost all of human cognition, up through the most abstract reasoning, depends on and makes use of such concrete and "low-level" facilities as the sensorimotor system and the emotions. We can safely say that "thoughts are made of energy" hence subjectivity breaks down, you cannot have 'subjective energy'

Objective/subjective were conceived long before serious neuroscience was around lets not forget, there can be errors in concepts and conceptualization.
 

JimO

Junior Member
Aug 21, 2008
3
0
0
I doubt thoughts 'are' energy. I see your thoughts as a the state of your brain. Sure, you need energy to bring a system from one state to another. But that doesn't mean that a state 'is' energy.

But I don't really see how that is relevant to the original idea. If you use 'objective' as 'it does exist', than it seems obvious that any thought is objective. But people don't use the word in that way when they are telling you a thought is subjective. We call a thought subjective if it is false, true in a smaller scope ("gralic stinks" instead of "I don't like the smell of garlic") or if a thought is based on too little information.

So I think we have to go back to difinitions. Your statement "all thoughts are objective" is true when using the right definition for objective.
You can debate the value of that. Isn't every statement true using the right definitions?
 

Biftheunderstudy

Senior member
Aug 15, 2006
375
1
81
Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake

Pretty much as far as I see it, eventially at its final level your defining the statement that matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed just changed in a different state, shape etc. Since everything has to come from previous existance.

I think you've nailed the topic right on the head. This topic and the last one "Light is Math" boiled down to Energy Conservation. And like last time, the argument fails at the quantum level when you take into account pair creation.

Also like last time, he has taken definitions and picked specific parts of them and bent them out of context to prove his point. He has taken subjectivity to mean the antonym of objectivity which is true. However he chose a particular meaning of objective and incorrectly assumed that subjective is the antonym of this definition. Just because a word is an antonym does not mean that it holds true for all definitions of the word.

By this same logic, one could argue that subjective is the antonym of:

3. Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.

The irony of it all is that he's chosen a subjective definition for the definition of subjective!
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: xts3
Ugh... you totally missed the point, the rest of your post breaks down because you've admited they are energy based, when you feel softness or hardness that is a form of thought that has to be transmitted to your brain via energy, it's over now.

Your whole problem is with the misunderstanding of thoughts, all of your perceptions are forms of thought.

Almost all of human cognition, up through the most abstract reasoning, depends on and makes use of such concrete and "low-level" facilities as the sensorimotor system and the emotions. We can safely say that "thoughts are made of energy" hence subjectivity breaks down, you cannot have 'subjective energy'

Objective/subjective were conceived long before serious neuroscience was around lets not forget, there can be errors in concepts and conceptualization.
Your whole problem is that you assume that you're right and that every other argument is simply a misunderstanding. You can provide no evidence, nor even an argument, to support your claims. You just keep saying things like, "We can safely say that thoughts are made of energy." Unfortunately, you don't understand that saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true. You're still begging the same question. Since you refuse to acknowledge even the remote possibility that you're wrong, there's no point in discussing anything with you. You already know it all and anything I say is apparently predestined to failure, whether it's because it's "objective" in some idiotic sense or because you're too intellectually lazy to attempt to examine an alternative viewpoint.
 

xts3

Member
Oct 25, 2003
120
0
0
Originally posted by: Biftheunderstudy
He has taken subjectivity to mean the antonym of objectivity which is true.

Which is the point, how can something that exists (and by the way, actuality, to be is the synonym for exist, and objective is the synonym for 'to be real, to exist, etc' don't believe me?

Defintion:
to exist (third-person singular simple present exists, present participle existing, simple past and past participle existed)

to be; have existence; have being or reality

Existence
existence (countable and uncountable; plural existences)

empirical reality; the substance of the physical universe


However he chose a particular meaning of objective and incorrectly assumed that subjective is the antonym of this definition.

Wrong, the whole point is the concepts themselves were invented by other people and from what we know know subjectivity becomes incoherent, just because certain words were conceived doesn't, doesn't mean they were conceived properly, words are social contructs.

Just because a word is an antonym does not mean that it holds true for all definitions of the word.

Again you're confused. My argument what you stated is just total bull.

The irony of it all is that he's chosen a subjective definition for the definition of subjective!

You're very confused. As for your "particle pair creation", again it depends totally on the social construction of the words "create", and what one actually means. They just went back to potential existence, you can't get something from an absolute negation of existence, not only that quantum theory has to bow to logic, as I demonstrated last time.