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

[Onund]

Ok, seriously, it is impossible to argue with you because you're just cherry picking portions of peoples posts and ignoring others all together. How are you defining 'subjective'? It seems like you have defined objective to mean 'it exists' and subjects = !objective or subjectives means 'it does not exist'. Or I don't fully understand your point. Subjective has nothing to do with existance.. unless I'm missing something fundamental.

The entire point of subjectivity is that it is dependent on the subject regardless of the reason for the opinion or thought. Hot does not necessarily mean 'will cause pain/damage'. It can mean 'uncomfortable'. The actual definition does not matter, what matters is the subjects perspective. I think the water my wife uses for showers is very hot, my wife does not. Two subjects, different opinions therefore subjective opinions, it depends on the subject, subjective.

Objectivity (in the context of subjective/objective opinions) relates to things which are NOT based on personal bias, ie. the actual tempuerature of the water. Any sufficiently educated and equiped subject will always obtain the same objective parameter from the water, say temperature.

If you're using a different definition then I dont' follow. I would say that objective also is defined as a the light gathering lens of a telescope, does that mean the subjective of a telescope is the light emitting bulkhead? or the dark scattering mirror?

 

[xts3]

The entire point of subjectivity is that it is dependent on the subject regardless of the reason for the opinion or thought. Hot does not necessarily mean 'will cause pain/damage'. It can mean 'uncomfortable'. The actual definition does not matter, what matters is the subjects perspective.

But the subject is an object of a type (i.e. you are an object I can perceive you), but the subject is dependent on reality (deriving from reality) for his perceptions, he does not have perception in a non-existent reality, he is deriving pre-existing stuff from stuff that exists previously and he inherits the properties of the stuff prior "outside". <-- you're not getting the concept of inheritance of the properties of reality.

This is what you are not understanding, he is DERIVING i.e. his perceptions from reality itself, not from "himself" you're thinking the subject is not a part of reality (he is 'disconnected', i.e. 'outside', we can demonstrate that this is nonsense, the subject IS reality because it is a part of reality.

Think of a circle, now I make a circle within that circle, that circle by definition exists within the geometry of the previous one. This is what you are not understanding that is why I posted this here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2...izes/o/in/photostream/

You are within a reality greater then yourself, you derive your existence from it, because you previously existed as matter and energy in the universe in some form. The idea that you stop existing in the absolute sense is nonsense, because you can never derive an existence (you) from the negation of existence.

The subjects "perspective" exists as actually existing information (energy), a perspective is a form of thought, and thoughts are made of previously existing energy. This is what I am attempting to drive into your skull, energy is always reality, when we divide energy from itself, it is still ENERGY, and maps back to itself. You can't escape the fact of the recursion here.

Such as: I exist because I was derived from the land of the planet, for me to exist, by definition, my form is dependent on the planet, because it is derived from the planet. Therefore I inherit the propertie (in some partial way) of the reality that previously existeds.

What you are not getting is that all properties (even mutally exclusive ones) are not disconnected, a mutually exclusive property is a negation of one property

+matter
-Matter

The negation of matter is non-existence, there is only one function here, you're thinking that properties are disconnected from reality, when all properties a piece of reality, and are derived from reality.

If you are a square and I am a circle on a piece of paper, both the square and the circle are defined by the geometry of the plane on which they exist, i.e. mutually exclusive properties are not actually seperate in the ultimate sense of the term because in order to compare proepert 1 to property 2, they must be a part of the same geometric object.

 

[Onund]

Yes, if you are the subject observing me then I am the object. Your subjective opinion exists, what difference does that all make? Subjective means the perspective of a subject, it is based in reality. I dont' see where I was thinking the subject is disconnected from reality. My point was it doesn't matter if the subject is connected or disconnected. The subject is only cocerned about the effect on the subject, regardless or where the stimulus is coming from.

What I don't understand is why you say subjective thoughts must be made of nothing or formed in some non-real universe. You're trying to prove your point without explaining what your point is to me. What does 'subjective' mean to you?

The way I see it, subjective thoughts and objective thoughts are both subsets of the same thing. I get the impression that you believe subjective and objective are from different sets. I can't understand why else you keep talking about energy to try and prove your point. Why does this same argument apply to 'subjective'?

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
.... I did a little thinking about it and my conclusion is similar to TuxDave's in that a thought/statement becomes objective when the majority of people would agree. This is not a perfect situation since there will always be people who disagree for some reason. Here's a few thought experiment situations I went through to come to this conclusion:

Typical representation of objective and subjective using statements about temperature:
Objective: This object is 100 degrees C.
Subjective: This object is hot.

But you can only detect "hotness" if you can read the information that is defining what is hot, you can't detect non-existent "hotness", hotness must be an existing thing, that derives itself from objective reality. Consider this: I feel a non-existent hot, that doesn't make any sense what-so-ever, if hotness exists, it exist as a part derived from previously existing reality. Not only that but: Hotness is information which is read from your nervous system, therefore hotness is objective information your nervous system is sending to your brain to inform you that you will be burned.

Object is hot --> I will be burned / destroyed, if hotness is subjective as you say, then why would you stop touching what is hot? You're getting an objective outcome (I will be burned) from a subjective statement (item is hot) because supposedly you can't objectively determine that hotness is real. This is where we find ourselves in contradiction: To define what hotness is, hotness must exist as a something, that objectively exists (information), that DERIVES itself from reality, i.e. inherits from reality and its properties all the way down the line.

You are confusing "hot" with "heat". The two are not the same and this completely invalidates your comments. Heat, or lack thereof, is the thing you feel. Hot is a relative term used to quantify the amount of heat perceived. The fact that it is relative to the observer is what makes the term subjective. You give the example of getting an objective outcome from a subjective statement, but I disagree. "Item is hot" and "I will be burned/damaged if I touch it" are two separate statements derived from the same observation but one does not come from the other. The first statement is very vague and subject to "compared to what" kind of questions. The second statement can generally be agreed upon if the item is hot enough to cause significant damage upon contact. The latter statement is not derived from the prior.

Again, I think you have grossly misinterpreted the definitions here. As I understand your definitions, objective means it exists, subjective means it does not exist, and you define exists in such a broad sense that everything exists. Therefor, by your definitions, subjective can not exist. Unfortunately for you, you've just created a paradox sense, by your definition, the idea of subjective must exist since we have conceived it. Iw ould argue this paradox alone points to a flaw in your reasoning/definitions. I think the rest of us are perfectly comfortable using the terms as they were originally intended and many in this thread have shared variations of those definitions.

I have no problem with your assertion that everything, including thoughts and fictitious imagination stem from real things, but this is not the same sense of reality that is referred to by the definitions of subjective and objective. Rather, I believe the proper definition in this case is closer to the one in my previous post.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
You are confusing "hot" with "heat". The two are not the same and this completely invalidates your comments. Heat, or lack thereof, is the thing you feel. Hot is a relative term used to quantify the amount of heat perceived.

Wrong because you are not grasping the concept of inheritance, you keep refusing to accept that reality any part of reality must map in some partial or whole way, to itself because it is derived from reality.

Do you disagree with this statement yes or no? I can't continue if you refuse to even attempt to understand this concept geometrically. When we define words, words are concepts we get from the geometric world of nature. We merely reshape a part of the world into a notion, but what the notion was made of and derived from was already there. You can't get an existent from a non-existent.

They are not seperate in the absolute sense, the are only differnt, not seperate, big differnece. I submit that what you call seperate is merely DIFFERENT, not actually seperate. One side of a box is DISTINCT (different from) another side, but all sides are connected. This is what you are not understanding. You have one half a of a circle that is black and one half that is white but both halfs are still inside the circle connected to one another in the ultimate sense.

You're missing the point completely heat is transferring information to you heat is connecting to your particles, which sends an electrical signal to your brain, i.e. it all exists in a chain which all derive from the same reality.

Heat is derived from energy, your perceptions are MADE of energy. Do you understand this now? Energy has the proprety of being objective, therefore anything made of energy cannot have the property of being subjective, because they are one and the same thing partially or wholly, the are merely different distinct aspects of the same thing.

This is the point I'm trying to get across which you are completely ignoring, there is no ultimate seperation from reality, when you think something is actually seperate from something else, it is merely DIFFERENT form of the same ultimate reality. It is merely ANOTHER aspect of the same thing in a different form.

Consider a surface and we blow a bullbe in the surface, the bubble is still a part of the surface.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: xts3

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2...izes/o/in/photostream/

Ok now explain to me why the entire universe must be a subset of me when I am a subset of the entire universe? Why must that be so? Why should it be true that the whole universe maps to a portion inside me when I only inherited a portion of the universe? I'm mostly disagreeing with the feedback part.

 

[xts3]

Ok now explain to me why the entire universe must be a subset of me when I am a subset of the entire universe? Why must that be so?

Is a whole is always connected to itself...yes/no?

A part is part of a whole (always a part of the whole), but it is ALSO a whole in and of itself, a reflection of the whole, partially or wholly. i.e. a circle within a circle, a feedback loop.

If we deny it, it leads us to contradiction. If a part is not a part of the whole, then the part it is derived from can never be.

Do you get it now? i.e. the universe is a strange kind of self excited circuit.

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
You are confusing "hot" with "heat". The two are not the same and this completely invalidates your comments. Heat, or lack thereof, is the thing you feel. Hot is a relative term used to quantify the amount of heat perceived.

Wrong because you are not grasping the concept of inheritance, you keep refusing to accept that reality any part of reality must map in some partial or whole way, to itself because it is derived from reality.

Do you disagree with this statement yes or no? I can't continue if you refuse to even attempt to understand this concept geometrically. When we define words, words are concepts we get from the geometric world of nature. We merely reshape a part of the world into a notion, but what the notion was made of and derived from was already there. You can't get an existent from a non-existent.

They are not seperate in the absolute sense, the are only differnt, not seperate, big differnece. I submit that what you call seperate is merely DIFFERENT, not actually seperate. One side of a box is DISTINCT (different from) another side, but all sides are connected. This is what you are not understanding. You have one half a of a circle that is black and one half that is white but both halfs are still inside the circle connected to one another in the ultimate sense.

You're missing the point completely heat is transferring information to you heat is connecting to your particles, which sends an electrical signal to your brain, i.e. it all exists in a chain which all derive from the same reality.

Heat is derived from energy, your perceptions are MADE of energy. Do you understand this now? Energy has the proprety of being objective, therefore anything made of energy cannot have the property of being subjective, because they are one and the same thing partially or wholly, the are merely different distinct aspects of the same thing.

This is the point I'm trying to get across which you are completely ignoring, there is no ultimate seperation from reality, when you think something is actually seperate from something else, it is merely DIFFERENT form of the same ultimate reality. It is merely ANOTHER aspect of the same thing in a different form.

Consider a surface and we blow a bullbe in the surface, the bubble is still a part of the surface.

No, I think you are the one misunderstanding. I have no problem with admitting that reality, as you are currently defining it means that everything, including all forms of matter and energy, are connected, related, and ultimately derived from the same real universe. You keep trying to argue this point, but you fail to realize that no one is arguing with you on these points.

BUT, these points are not your original assertion as I understand it. As I understand it, your original claim was that the concept of subjective/objective is incoherent because everything is objective. As I stated in my previous post, if you define subjective, objective, and reality in the way you do then you are correct. But your definitions of these three terms do not agree with the definitions of everyone else posting in this thread. Additionally, as I mentioned in my previous post, your line of reasoning leads to a paradox that I would love to hear you explain.

I think you have worked yourself up so much in your own thoughts of the argument that your are not allowing (consciously or subconsciously) other people to reframe the problem for you. Unfortunately, I believe you have framed the problem incorrectly. You are ignoring most of the reasoning given in this thread on the grounds that we are missing the point, but I believe you are missing the point and refuse to be redirected.

In our example, the fact that matter and energy transfer real heat from a source to our senses and that real electrical signals carry this information to our brain where real electrical signals continue to process that information is not at dispute here. The fact that all these things are connected and come from the same physical reality is not at dispute here. My example statement two posts ago referred to the term "hot", not "heat" (or "hotness"). My previous post clarified the difference between the two in case you are still confused. Yet, amazingly, here you are arguing about "heat."

What is at dispute here are definitions of concepts that have been created as a tool to categorize different kinds of thoughts/statements. Unfortunately, I believe you have misunderstood the definitions.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: xts3

Ok now explain to me why the entire universe must be a subset of me when I am a subset of the entire universe? Why must that be so?

Is a whole is always connected to itself...yes/no?

A part is part of a whole (always a part of the whole), but it is ALSO a whole in and of itself, a reflection of the whole, partially or wholly. i.e. a circle within a circle, a feedback loop.

If we deny it, it leads us to contradiction. If a part is not a part of the whole, then the part it is derived from can never be.

Do you get it now? i.e. the universe is a strange kind of self excited circuit.

To me, the whole argument is a complete mess because you're mixing up "sharing a property" with "everything you have, I must have".

Very simply put, if the universe contains {a,b,c,d,e,f} and I contain {a,b} and you contain {c,d}, we are a part of the whole. We are both sharing a property that we come from the same superset. You and I are mutually exclusive such that you contain nothing that I contain. And the universe entities {e,f} does not exist in you or me.

Break it down from there.

 

[KIAman]

Like everyone has been posting, you are choosing different reference points depending on the logic you are trying to support. You can find a relationship in everything simply by falling back on the argument that everything, as we know it, exists.

Let me give you some examples.

A car and tree are essentially the same. They are both inherit from their respective elementary particles which share the same quantum particles which are real. Yes, they are different, but they are not separate! My snot and my emotions are essentially the same. One is derived from a physical process of my body while the other is derived from a mental process of my body, both inherited by my body which is a single unit. Regardless of your decision to believe me or not, it is objective and real because whatever I heppen to conjecture exists because I cannot not exist because I am obviously here typing and you reading.

EDIT: this reminds me of all the other posts claiming everything is math, everything is geometry and several other everything is INSERTHERE posts.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
BUT, these points are not your original assertion as I understand it. As I understand it, your original claim was that the concept of subjective/objective is incoherent because everything is objective.

You missed the point again, you didn't understand the original assertion you're using wordisms, I said use geometry or else you won't get it, words are defined from natures geometry, you don't make concepts out of nothing, you make it out of energy that has geometric shape and form that is measurable, which has structure

As I stated in my previous post, if you define subjective, objective, and reality in the way you do then you are correct.

You did not grasp what I said, I said that concepts are made of energy, energy has the property of being objective, the concept of subjective (because it exists) cannot inherit the property of being objective without becoming incoherent, you can't have subjectively existing energy. I'm dealing with where our concepts are actually derived, reality, this is the point you're completely glossing over. You don't think with non-existent, you think and make thoughts out of energy.

ALL of you experiences and interpretatiopns are derived from and stored as energy. Is this true or not? Did our concept of subjecivity derive itself from really existing matter and energy? yes or no?

Now that we know concepts are made of energy, and energy has the PROPERTY of being OBJECTIVE, the concept of being SUBJECTIVE becomes incoherent, you inherit the properties (partially or wholly) out of the stuff you are made out of, or would you like to deny that?

That's all we need to demonstrate here. Just because we invent words does not mean they are correct.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: KIAman
A car and tree are essentially the same. They are both inherit from their respective elementary particles which share the same quantum particles which are real. Yes, they are different, but they are not separate! My snot and my emotions are essentially the same.

My point is they are made of the same stuff, therefore the stuff they are made of must always inherit the qualities of what the new thing is, because the new thing IS the old thing in a different pattern.

Snot is actually particles made of energy, your emotions are bits of data made of energy, else you couldn't detect them. You can't detect something isn't objective. i.e. I can't observe a subjective existence. Detect and observe are the same function. Detect --> Feedback, observe --> feedback. i.e. a causal loop. You throw a ball at a wall it bounces off the wall and returns to you touching you thereby completing the circle of observation.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
To me, the whole argument is a complete mess because you're mixing up "sharing a property" with "everything you have, I must have".

I'm saying that ALL things are childs of the parent from which they are derived, because the parent and the child are in the ultimate sense the same, because the child exists within the parent existence, whom must by definition inherit the characteristics of the parent-existence It's not a mess because if you deny it then naturalism itself breaks down,

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: TuxDave
To me, the whole argument is a complete mess because you're mixing up "sharing a property" with "everything you have, I must have".

I'm saying that ALL things are childs of the parent from which they are derived, because the parent and the child are in the ultimate sense the same, because the child exists within the parent existence, whom must by definition inherit the characteristics of the parent-existence It's not a mess because if you deny it then naturalism itself breaks down,

Then counter the statement I made:

Very simply put, if the universe contains {a,b,c,d,e,f} and I contain {a,b} and you contain {c,d}, we are a part of the whole. We are both sharing a property that we come from the same superset. You and I are mutually exclusive such that you contain nothing that I contain. And the universe entities {e,f} does not exist in you or me.

You are saying entities {c,d,e,f} must map to something inside me. The parent and child do NOT have to be identical. That is why we say the child is a part of the parent. It contains a subset of the parents. The child may contain less than the parent and therefore are not equal.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Then counter the statement I made:

Very simply put, if the universe contains {a,b,c,d,e,f} and I contain {a,b} and you contain {c,d}, we are a part of the whole. We are both sharing a property that we come from the same superset. You and I are mutually exclusive such that you contain nothing that I contain. And the universe entities {e,f} does not exist in you or me.

You haven't defined it properly there is only one object in the set, and the sub-objects are pieces of the ONE object.

There is only the A, and derivations of A.

i.e. 2 is 2 derivations of 1, 3 is 3 derivations of 1, etc.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Then counter the statement I made:

Very simply put, if the universe contains {a,b,c,d,e,f} and I contain {a,b} and you contain {c,d}, we are a part of the whole. We are both sharing a property that we come from the same superset. You and I are mutually exclusive such that you contain nothing that I contain. And the universe entities {e,f} does not exist in you or me.

You haven't defined it properly there is only one object in the set, and the sub-objects are pieces of the ONE object.

There is only the A, and derivations of A.

i.e. 2 is 2 derivations of 1, 3 is 3 derivations of 1, etc.

Your example is flawed:

So let's say 2 = {1,1}, and 3 = {1,1,1}. What you're saying is that there exists a basic building block. Ok, I'm ok with that idea.

But 2 and 3 are not composed of the SAME building block. Just like the carbon atom in you is structurally the same as the carbon atom in me, it is not the same carbon atom in existance. They are two unique building block in existance. So you can think of it as:

2 = {1[0], 1[1]} and 3 = {1[2],1[3],1[4]} where the bracket identifies the different building blocks although they have similiar properties.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
But 2 and 3 are not composed of the SAME building block.

You again are missing the concept of INHERITANCE, again don't start posting until you realize in REALITY you are made of STUFF that PRE-EXISTS you, and so are your notions, everything is made of stuff that existed before it. This is where you are wrong, because both 2 and 3 share the same existence surface in REALITY, i.e. they derived from the same reality.

I can mould playdough into two objects, but they share the same characteristics of the original playdough, what you're not getting is objects in the set are fractions of the actual set of A. That is what you are not getting

There is only A and pieces of A, i.e. pieces of A, but they always inherit the characteristics of A (A being objective existence)

Consider the statement

Existence exists. Is that true yes or no?

If we deny it then we see where your problem is. Since you're not getting that all existents belong to the existence set, which we will call A.

Existence is one object, and all sub-existents are pieces of the one existence-object. They are never actually seperate, they are only DIFFERENT, because they BELONG to A.

You're problem is because you see differences, they are seperate in the ultimate sense, this is where you are wrong, they are merely DIFFERENT aspects (sub pieces) of the existence they are made of they are not SEPERATE from the SET.

 

[TuxDave]

Telling someone to not post until they agree with you is not driving your point anywhere. Anyways...

You're problem is because you see differences, they are seperate in the ultimate sense, this is where you are wrong, they are merely DIFFERENT aspects (sub pieces) of the existence they are made of they are not SEPERATE from the SET.

I never disagreed with that statement. You {c,d} and me {a,b} are part of the set {a,b,c,d}. That makes perfect sense to me. There's no contradiction so far.

Too bad I can't argue with you on this in person because I'm sure it'll go through a ton faster. In essense what I am seeing in you is a circular reference. You are defining how things exists and making conclusions about it. I am claiming your initial definition is wrong. The universe contains of {a,b,c,d}. {a} could represent {1[0]}, b could represent {1[1]} etc.... my claim is that the universe contains unique objects which leads to separate entities in the universe. Your claim is that the universe contains a single object which is used in all things making everyone the same.

"Existance" is the definition of what is in the universe set. All things in the universe exist. Ok. But saying "everything exists therefore you and I are the same because we both exist" is completely false. You are ignoring other properties that unique things. You are purposely putting "existance" as the smallest building block of things in the universe which is wrong. Two objects can exist in DIFFERENT locations. Locatoin becomes a subset of existance which two objects can have different values for.

Edit: Ah fudge I deleted half my post in that last edit.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: TuxDave
Too bad I can't argue with you on this in person because I'm sure it'll go through a ton faster. In essense what I am seeing in you is a circular reference.

My claim is that ALL references in REALITY ARE circular in the ultimate sense, they all refer back to reality - existence. because they were first DERIVED FROM it, i.e. there is no such thing as non-existence in the ultimate sense. When you die your body and mind decompose to be recomposed again into something else, they don't stop existing. When we make an objective measurement that measurement is DERIVED from reality - it refer's back to the reality that existed BEFORE the measurement was taken. You can't measure an existence, if it doesn't exist prior to your measuring it. You can't measure something that is not actually there.

You are defining how things exists and making conclusions about it.

You have TOTALLY misunderstood, what I stated was: HOW ARE THINGS DEFINED IN REALITY, in the real world when you define a new concept you are DERIVING that concept from REALITY, you are using energy to DEFINE something that is ALSO made of energy --> energy is defining itself. Or would you care to disagree that the evolution is not a self-organizing process? If it is self organizing it is CIRCULAR by definition because it is referencing itself.

You are completely not understanding and outright ignoring (or not reading) my statements.

I am claiming your initial definition is wrong.

Which word or which statement? You have to point out the error because it has to be there.

"Existance" is the definition of what is in the universe set.

Wrong because existence IS the parent of other existents. Existence is prior to the universe because the universe CHANGES and has distinct objects that are distinct, existence is itself, so the universe is a sub-division of existence, because the universe contains pieces. The "real" (parent) universe (existence) unitary is the same, it is all of the pieces at once, all merged, all connected. The universe has many objects, therefore it cannot be the parent existence. Since we are not one big spherical mass and there are people and stuff, the universe is not the parent, the universe we exist in is a child, because there is distinction. (subdivisions of one existence)

The unvierse exists, existence existed before the universe, so for the universe to have blown up, there must have been something it blew up from. Since if existence never existed, no universe could ever exist. Yes or no?

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: xts3
You did not grasp what I said, I said that concepts are made of energy, energy has the property of being objective, the concept of subjective (because it exists) cannot inherit the property of being objective without becoming incoherent, you can't have subjectively existing energy. I'm dealing with where our concepts are actually derived, reality, this is the point you're completely glossing over. You don't think with non-existent, you think and make thoughts out of energy.

I must admit that this statement makes no sense to me (emphasis added). Perhaps you can clarify.

This seems directly related to the paradox I stated earlier. If the fact that a thought exists somehow makes the thoughts subject matter exist, then there could be no concept of nothing, because nothing, by definition, does not exist. But there is a concept of nothing, therefor the previous fact must be false. How do you interpret this? Is there a mistake in my logic or have I misunderstood your argument again?

To be fair, I will make sure to answer all your direct questions so I don't look like I'm avoiding things.

Originally posted by: xts3
ALL of you experiences and interpretations are derived from and stored as energy. Is this true or not? Did our concept of subjectivity derive itself from really existing matter and energy? yes or no?

Yes, and I believe I addressed this in my previous post, albeit in a different form.

Originally posted by: xts3
Now that we know concepts are made of energy, and energy has the PROPERTY of being OBJECTIVE, the concept of being SUBJECTIVE becomes incoherent, you inherit the properties (partially or wholly) out of the stuff you are made out of, or would you like to deny that?

Let me break this down since there are many parts and assumptions here:

"concepts are made of energy": No problem here, although I would argue that concepts are carried by energy and not necessarily one and the same, but I don't believe that will affect the outcome of this argument and is more of a philosophical nature than a logical or scientific one.

"energy has the property of being objective": For this, I have to substitute your definition of objective since that particular definition is what I currently dispute with you.
-You believe that objective means that an object (of physical or energetic nature) is real and exists. I argue this definition is circular and that multiple definitions for objective exist including at least one that leads to no circular definitions or paradoxes as is commonly used, but you seem to dismiss this definition as not the point so:
--If we take your definition for now and substitute into the original phrase we get "energy has the property of being real": yes, I agree that energy is real.

"the concept of being SUBJECTIVE becomes incoherent": Again, let me substitute your own definitions. I assume you don't have a problem with it since they are your definitions. Please correct me if I have misrepresented them.
-"the concept of being not real becomes incoherent": By your definitions, this is true because a concept is by its nature real and therefor can not describe something that is not real because you can not get nothing from something. Is this what you are trying to say? I'm still confused on that. If it is then I agree since this is essentially the same thing as the paradox I referred to. Additionally, this line of reasoning makes the assumption that if a thought/concept is real then the thing it represents must also be real. By this reasoning, of course subjectivity is incoherent, but getting back to my original argument, I disagree that subjectivity is incoherent due to my disagreeing with your definitions.

In short, I disagree that subjective, in the sense of categorizing statements as either subjective or objective, means that the subject does not exist. You have created your own incoherence/paradox with your own definition. You keep trying to make this about physical reality and avoid the issue of definitions, but I think it has everything to do with definitions. The fact that definitions are concepts and are real has no bearing on the matter. The fact that geometry is a concept and can be used to illustrate a situation does not make it necessary to solve a problem. When solving a problem with tools such as geometry, fundamental assumptions are made. If these assumptions are incorrect then so will be the result. This has nothing to do with geometry and everything to do with your assumptions/definitions.

 

[xts3]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
...

You don't understand, in every single one of your posts you're ignoring the concept of inheritance and not understanding what it means, I'm going to have to explain this to you using an animation because obviously you are not capable of grasping this on your own. I've said it many times so I have to literally show you and hope you get it.

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: xts3

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
...

You don't understand, in every single one of your posts you're ignoring the concept of inheritance and not understanding what it means, I'm going to have to explain this to you using an animation because obviously you are not capable of grasping this on your own. I've said it many times so I have to literally show you and hope you get it.

Well, I wouldn't waste your time on an animation since I don't think the concept of inheritance is even at debate here, at least as discussed between you and I. I don't see how I'm ignoring the concept of inheritance. I have no problems agreeing that everything, by definition is something, and comes from the same something that everything else does. I also have no problems agreeing that if a real thing is remolded into another thing, then that is real also since the underlying substance has only changed form. I thought this was the whole point of your arguments about inheritance, but I still don't see what that has to do with your definition of subjective.

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
Well, I wouldn't waste your time on an animation since I don't think the concept of inheritance is even at debate here, at least as discussed between you and I. I don't see how I'm ignoring the concept of inheritance. I have no problems agreeing that everything, by definition is something, and comes from the same something that everything else does. I also have no problems agreeing that if a real thing is remolded into another thing, then that is real also since the underlying substance has only changed form. I thought this was the whole point of your arguments about inheritance, but I still don't see what that has to do with your definition of subjective.

Ok so if you understand my argument, and you realize that real things are just things that already existed remolded, then how can you have objective stuff, remolded into subjective stuff, the concept of subjectivity is an attribute, my problem is something with the attribute of being objective (i.e. the stuff) always possesses it because it is reality, it cannot possess by definition the attribute of being subjective without being self-negating.

I exist--> I subjectively exist. I can't 'subjectively exist'. Since existence is objective by definition, since we are merely remolding stuff that exists objectively, got it now?

So yes you did not grasp the concept that the attribute is inherited because the object and the attribute are unified. Stuff cannot depossess itself (in the ultimate sense) of existing and at the same time having the property of being objectively real, i.e. when we die, the stuff we were formed out of still exists.

We're trying to cause objective thing to inherit the attribute of being subejctive, but they are self-cancelling. i.e. you can observe your own experiences, so they must by definition be partially objective otherwise you couldn't observe them or experience them.

 

[PolymerTim]

Originally posted by: Gannon

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
Well, I wouldn't waste your time on an animation since I don't think the concept of inheritance is even at debate here, at least as discussed between you and I. I don't see how I'm ignoring the concept of inheritance. I have no problems agreeing that everything, by definition is something, and comes from the same something that everything else does. I also have no problems agreeing that if a real thing is remolded into another thing, then that is real also since the underlying substance has only changed form. I thought this was the whole point of your arguments about inheritance, but I still don't see what that has to do with your definition of subjective.

Ok so if you understand my argument, and you realize that real things are just things that already existed remolded, then how can you have objective stuff, remolded into subjective stuff, the concept of subjectivity is an attribute, my problem is something with the attribute of being objective (i.e. the stuff) always possesses it because it is reality, it cannot possess by definition the attribute of being subjective without being self-negating.

I exist--> I subjectively exist. I can't 'subjectively exist'. Since existence is objective by definition, since we are merely remolding stuff that exists objectively, got it now?

So yes you did not grasp the concept that the attribute is inherited because the object and the attribute are unified. Stuff cannot depossess itself (in the ultimate sense) of existing and at the same time having the property of being objectively real, i.e. when we die, the stuff we were formed out of still exists.

We're trying to cause objective thing to inherit the attribute of being subejctive, but they are self-cancelling. i.e. you can observe your own experiences, so they must by definition be partially objective otherwise you couldn't observe them or experience them.

I'm not trying to argue that objective stuff can be remolded into subjective stuff. Please let me know if one of my statements led you to believe that, and if so, which one. What I've been arguing is that the definition of "real" that is intended to be used for the concepts of subjective and objective is not the same definition you are using for "real."

The more I look at this, I realize that your concept of incoherent is the exact same thing as the paradox I brought up. Using your definitions leads to an incompatibility/paradox/incoherence. What you fail to see is that the word "real" has many different definitions. You act as if there is only one. I believe you have chosen the wrong definition of "real" for use in the context of defining objective/subjective.

You also mention about something being partially objective. If you want to go that route, then I would agree that nothing is perfectly subjective or objective. Rather, I believe the classification is not perfectly exact (per one of my previous posts) and leads everything to be somewhere between the two. But if I understand you correctly and subjectivity can not exist, then I don't understand how you can argue that something can be only partly objective.

Again, I'm not trying to change an objective thing into a subjective thing; I'm not trying to argue inheritance. I simply disagree with your application of definitions in what I consider to be an incorrect way.

{Psst... I think you forgot to switch your account back to xts3 }

 

[Gannon]

Originally posted by: PolymerTim
{Psst... I think you forgot to switch your account back to xts3 }

I know my computers are totally messed up lol, I reformatted my hard drive from a backup I lost and the old cookies were still there logging me in lol.