Fresh example of a point I’m trying to make against what I think is an unreasonable standard that Kant and Icenine have placed on objectivity:

Say you run up against a brick wall:

It feels hard and solid and you cannot pass through it. Now an outside observer or an alien with a different perception might note that both the human and the brick wall are made up of mostly empty space (because atoms and electrons are tiny compared to their orbits). And so he might perceive that it’s not solid at all.

BUT—even the outside alien creature thingy has to admit that the human cannot pass through the wall. He must agree with the human’s “different” perception. Even though the experience is uniquely human, the information is objective—you cannot pass through a brick wall, and your perception tells you this no matter how uniquely you experience said perception. The perception is about reality. It is objective.

Ice, Am I wrong?

I don't know, but hitting that brick wall would hurt!

Yeah I know what you mean. Some people can rationalise everything. I was having a similar discussion with one guy and he said "Well how do we know that we're really here and it's not a dream?" And I said "if I punched you in the face right now you'd feel the pain, that would wake you up!".
Not that I would punch anyone of course

ConsciousContact said:

Yeah...that's similar to my problem. It's not IceNine per se that I have a problem with (I happen to think he's very cool). But his position is what ultimately lets governments get away with murder--it relieves them of the need for any clear ethics, because it's all subjective anyway and the intellectuals will all back them up on that point. (!)

teller said:

Pardon me, I won't claim to speak for Ice, but here is my response:

The alien doesn't know if there is actually a human or a brick wall out there causing his perceptions. He might be justified in thinking so; it would seem reasonable. But he has no way of independently verifying his perceptions, since any proposed verification would also be via his perceptions.

Knowledge of the CAUSE of our perceptions is at the heart of the matter.

Doves,
Mel!ssa

tackam said:

I recognize that validating our perceptions would involve using perception, and that this is circular. But how much of a problem is that really? Why wouldn't our perceptions be valid? Why would nature evolve our senses if not to perceive reality?

teller said:

Well, that is a very very good point (and some generous people have tried to attribute it to Kant, but I don't think he thought of it that way).

It's not rock-solid, though. The reason you think that we must have evolved to perceive reality is because of your perception of us as critters who appear to be the way we appear to be! Ie., we think of ourselves as human beings who have evolved in a certain kind of environment. But all of that is still perception; we could be little un-evolved children of some sort of God plugged into a Matrix, ya know?

Doves,
Mel!ssa

teller said:

Ethical relativity does not mean that there are no clear ethics, just that ethics are a human choice. The alternative is a Hobbsian 'nasty, brutish, and short' life. Most of us choose ethics, and can rationally defend that despite thier relativity.

Ethical objectivity does not make things any clearer. If ethics are a real thing out in the world, what are they made of, and how do we know about them? Doesn't help much to have objective ethics if there is no way to know what they are.

Doves,
Mel!ssa

teller said:

There are certain things that we know for a fact, such as the fact that we cannot walk through walls, fly in the air unaided or otherwise nullify the laws of physics. Our inability to nullify the laws of physics is not subjective and our inability to walk through walls is the necessary result of physical actions. Therefore, our inability to walk through walls is objective... we KNOW that we cannot walk through walls, but we can never KNOW the wall or ourselves in reality. Everything that we know about the wall, or ourselves is incomplete but we know enough about it to know that we are unable to pass through a wall.

If some people were able to walk through walls and others were unable to walk through walls and we made an assumption about a stranger's ability to walk through walls, our assumption would be subjective.

The idea that I propose, as did Kant is that we cannot ever know the reality of objects, etc. We can know how we observe objects and such, but what we know is incomplete and is colored by our perception.

For instance, someone who is untrained in physics will see a brick and "know" that it is solid. Try convincing this person that the brick is 99% empty space. The person's perception is colored by experience and knowledge, or lack thereof. Even though the scientifically-trained person "knows" that the brick is mostly empty space, he does not know the reality of the particles or forces that make up the brick and cannot know them due to imprecise measurements in sub-atomic physical properties.

tackam said:

Ethics are a personal choice and are based out of the personal world-view of the actor. There are no universal ethics, therefore all ethical behavior is subjective and ethical relative to the ethical concepts of the observer or the behavior displayed by the actor.

IceNine said:

THIS is what I was hoping for. I backed off from ethics long enough to establish some objectivity of perception greater than 0% and you have given me that much.

1) Yes, our knowledge is incomplete, especially with omniscience as a standard.

2) Will you give me any objectivity about ethics greater than zero? Or is ethics different and special, and therefore 100% subjective? Just trying to get you to settle into a firm position...

teller said:

This may not be absolutely relevant but I've often thought about how some insects see in black and white. They obviously wouldn't be able to conceive of colour and would imagine that "true" reality is what they perceive through their senses. Could it be possible that our senses just aren't as great as they could be at taking in the world around us?

teller said:

Ahh, but I have a very firm position and it is consistent.

Ethics are always subjective, as there is no universal moral or ethical construct and all judgment of behaviors is done by humans. Ethics and morality are abstract mental ideas and are therefore subjective at all times and without question.

Here is a very lame example:

Although I think that murder is wrong, I support the death penalty in certain instances. This works with my idea of ethics, as I believe that certain factors justify the taking of the life of the killer. Other people do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. There is no reason to think that my view is better than the view of others and vice-versa, therefore our ideas of right and wrong are subjective.

IceNine said:

I'll break you of this later. For now I wanted to make sure that knowledge itself (sans ethics) had at least some pathway to objectivity with you.

bkk1981 said:

They see less information. But light and dark still apply. Some creatures perhaps cannot even perceive light and dark, but only shapes, so they see even less. How much varies from being to being (never omniscient). The question is, is the knowledge, however limited, ABOUT reality and not just some concoction.

I don't suppose I can argue whether or not we're in the Matrix. But since the laws of physics are constant so far, I'll make do with this reality!

teller said:

Eh, I don't think you've got him. Ice, if I may:

I can know, based on inductive reasoning, that I cannot perceive myself walking through a wall. It has never happened before, I have no reason to think that it will happen now. That does not mean that it is inconceivable that such a perception will occur. Just very, very unlikely. So unlikely that I feel justified in saying that I KNOW it will not happen.

I am still talking about my percepions! I have no way of ever knowing if my body and walls are real in the way that I perceive them to be.

For the record, I am SUPPOSED to be in an ancient philosophy class right now, but I missed my fucking bus because I was screwing around on the org. I need to take an org vacation, I think. . .

Doves,
Mel!ssa

IceNine said:

I think that you can get a little more structure than that without granting ethical objectivity.

For example, if you and I agree that we have a goal of living peacefully together in society while respecting everyones rights (or, we agree to something else, wouldn't have to be that), then we might agree within the confines of that goal that some things are ethical and some are not. My view might be empirically better than yours, ie. mine might, as a matter of fact, be more likely to fulfill our goals.

In the case of the death penalty example, I think that letting the state kill people does more to undermine human rights than it does to better society, so I'm against it. If you do not share my goals for the betterment of society, including respect for human rights, or if I'm wrong about the empirical facts, then I have NO REASON to think my view is better than yours. But there is some room to recognize ethics as a social structure, and recognize that different views do in fact have different consequences for our goals within that structure.

I suppose you could say that ethics are objective within a subjective metaethical framework, or some philosophical gobbledygook like that.

Doves,
Mel!ssa

tackam said:

I really didn't mean to get us back into ethics--we beat it to death awhile back I wanted it to cool off a little...but I think we can all agree that ethics are specifically human and derive their standards from human nature.

Trying to find some common ground on the objectivity of plain old knowledge sans ethics is what I'm after--so that later I can try to play the fact that man has a specific nature, objectively, and then derive ethics off that, assuming I can present a good arrangement of why a person actually needs ethics to survive.

But if the thread is going to wander back into ethics, that's fine too...I just don't want to be accused of beating a dead horse!

That's fine, we can drop the ethics. Still not gonna give you your desired epistemology, sorry.

Doves,
Mel!ssa

tackam said:

SIGH!

Plus, I kinda hijacked a thread directed at Tony, sorry about that. I have this problem with minding my own business and shutting my overactive mouth. Shutting up now.



Doves,
Mel!ssa

tackam said:

No, no, no, this is a public thread. The title is mainly there because he's the target, but your discussion is absolutely welcome here! Otherwise I would have just orgnoted him.