Concepts about people, and real people beyond concepts

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:55 am

Nobody is objective but they don't know this because they are brainwashed.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:16 pm

Yea right... you talk about not being objective, but what is it that does you able to answer a question...................

What is it that makes you have the awareness? What is it to be or not to be objective?

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:18 pm

On 2005-04-07 12:55, braincell wrote:
Nobody is objective but they don't know this because they are brainwashed.

Nevertheless, when you talk this way, you seem to be one of those guys that belive to be objective... How do you know you are not breinwashed you yourself when saying that? Where does your conviction comes from?

Your statement tells me you belive to be above everybody else in the world, as you can see how others are brainwashed beaing you the only living being able to realise it... So... perhaps the only objective person in the world?

You have just being an example to the matter itself of this thread

_________________
Music is the most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*

[ This Message was edited by: nestor on 2005-04-07 16:18 ]

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:21 pm

One subject that needs full objectivity is science. If you mix these colours of light you get that colour. If weight need to be moved from here to there with such acceleration, it takes such amount of energy. The earth turns around the sun.
Isn't all that very objective?

Of course in judging people, things get much more complicated. As Michu says, judge the deeds not words nor looks.
If you strip a relation down to the basics, it uses a lot of feedback. One does something for someone else knowing it will get back to him. 'Man gets the food, woman cooks it' style. It won't last if the man just says he's going to get it eh.

Then, from these deeds, you can derive other facts, obvious results from these deeds. That still doesn't judge good or bad, and looks quite objective. If you benefit from it you'll say good, if it makes your situation worse you'll say bad.

-mr. abstract.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:25 pm

On 2005-04-07 13:21, at0m wrote:
One subject that needs full objectivity is science. If you mix these colours of light you get that colour. If weight need to be moved from here to there with such acceleration, it takes such amount of energy. The earth turns around the sun.
Isn't all that very objective?

Of course in judging people, things get much more complicated. As Michu says, judge the deeds not words nor looks.
If you strip a relation down to the basics, it uses a lot of feedback. One does something for someone else knowing it will get back to him. 'Man gets the food, woman cooks it' style. It won't last if the man just says he's going to get it eh.

Then, from these deeds, you can derive other facts, obvious results from these deeds. That still doesn't judge good or bad, and looks quite objective. If you benefit from it you'll say good, if it makes your situation worse you'll say bad.

-mr. abstract.

I find it very interesting indeed... quite resonable to me. The point that we all take "good" for what is helpfull to me and "evil" what is harmfull, is a tremendous reality. Sometimes cultural understanding of life can be taken as feeling more or less objective.

For instance, in ancient China, if the grandfather of a family group was too ill, they will execute the person with poison, applying what we call euthanasia. For them that was not only correct, but seen as mercy, as they would take care of the poor old man. For some European countries in the 19th, you would have been taken into prison for it. So what you say has a historic background.

But, even if I have asked it many times: What is it that inside human nature gives more or less objectivity to a person, what is it really?

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:56 pm

Do you take "knowledge or wisdom" for an answer?
(The last one even more subjective than the first one.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:09 pm

I find it very interesting indeed... quite resonable to me. The point that we all take "good" for what is helpfull to me and "evil" what is harmfull, is a tremendous reality. Sometimes cultural understanding of life can be taken as feeling more or less objective.

Are you more annoyed at someone who TRIES to trip you but fails, or someone who ACCIDENTALLY trips you? The first has not harmed you but the second one has.

Or, why is it seen as (say) a noble thing to die for your family, your country, etc? What do you get out of it? You'll be dead!

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:09 pm

On 2005-04-07 12:55, braincell wrote:
Nobody is objective but they don't know this because they are brainwashed.

Wise men doubt, only fools are certain.

Do I believe this? I'm certain!

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:11 pm

On 2005-04-07 16:56, at0m wrote:
Do you take "knowledge or wisdom" for an answer?
(The last one even more subjective than the first one.

Ok, thank you for answering my question Atom…

Well, knowledge and wisdom, ok, I understand knowledge as something more external than wisdom, and wisdom as a deeper thing based on experimentation and final results that have not to be explained nor put into the polarity of good or bad, something that gets beyond normal understanding. But not, this is not the answer I am looking for, askno9wledge and wisdom are both things that happened at a later stage of being or not objective. There must be something before, that makes you be aware of things… a “perception” instrument, and would like to know which one do you think it is.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:29 pm

But, even if I have asked it many times: What is it that inside human nature gives more or less objectivity to a person, what is it really?

Trying to understand what objectivity is, *may* be impossible because it presupposes things (like assuming that objectivity represents some kind of valid perception of the truth, and you can have an objective opinion about it). It's like a proof that proofs are possible, or a proofs that proofs are impossible. Either of them is (to me) ridiculous, because you have to accept that a proof is possible before considering whether they can be true or not.

I can only assume that it is *possible* to be right about some things, and go from there. What makes people 'want to be objective'? You could argue that it's an evolutionary trait, because it helps us survive and be a successful species, those that are objective will survive more.

[ This Message was edited by: Liquid Len on 2005-04-07 17:38 ]

skwawks · Post by **skwawks** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:48 pm

Definitions are funny things aren't they in that once you start trying to define you then have to define your definition and that then requires another definition...is that a logic trap??
anyway another two cents worth ....
Objectivity is an imaginary state wherein one imagines one isn't there .
Of course though when Elvis Costello sang "I'd rather be anywhere else than here...." he was being subjective

Cheers
Paul U.F.O.

Casper · Post by **Casper** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:02 am

undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal";

Now I don't believe humans can shut this emotion off. But I do believe in a discussion wich is nothing more that talking about a certen subject and revealing positive and negative sides ( and the ones that blend both way's) A discussion becomes unobjective when people are mixing archuments with there opinions.

You can say
A) " I am against the war because it makes me sick to think of it"

Or B) "I am agains the war because in war there are no winners only losers because of losses on both sides" .

Now wich one is the objective one ? Or were they both unobjective?

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:52 am

I'll repeat in saying that objective reality comes from consensus. There is no such thing as objective reality, but only an agreement. It is even true in mathematics I think. There is nothing inherently true about 1+1=2. It's only true because we have agreed on it's objective true-ness. Even with simple things like wavelengths of light. Staments using hertz or other such "scientific" units are true only because it is based on an agreement. The agreement within a certain community is what creates an illusion of objective reality. It's not perfectly objective, because it is a collection of subjective realities, but it's damn close. So, in a sense, you can call it objective reality.

I think the underlying issue may be the question self awareness, which has a different description than the objectivism vs subjectivism conflict.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2005-04-08 07:54 ]

emzee · Post by **emzee** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:24 am

A health professional was seriously troubled and seeing a psychiatrist. He said to his shrink, "I think....hey, I'm not the first medical professional to have sex with a patient. But then this little voice says....but George, you're a veterinarian".

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:52 am

On 2005-04-08 07:52, kensuguro wrote:
I'll repeat in saying that objective reality comes from consensus. There is no such thing as objective reality, but only an agreement. It is even true in mathematics I think. There is nothing inherently true about 1+1=2. It's only true because we have agreed on it's objective true-ness. Even

Can it be 'true' that objective reality came from consensus? If nothing is really 'true', how can it be 'true' that nothing is really true?

The sun is x million miles away from the earth right now, regardless of what you or I think (or agree) about it.

Immanuel · Post by **Immanuel** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:21 am

Nice thread Nestor - good to have a reason to think a bit again

I believe, that we deal with our knowledge in an "objectiveish" way. It is very inconvenient in our everyday life to think we know nothing for sure. "Knowing" things - or to say it in other words - to have decided some knowledge - makes decisionmaking possible. If you "know" nothing, you will have no ability to make decisions - since, on which parameters should you base your decision - and on which parameters should you decide, what is a positive outcome, and what is a negative outcome?

The subject of objectivity is closely realted to the subject of reality. Here there are different concepts about reality:

Decartes said, that we can not be sure of anything but our own existence (poor man). "I think - therefor I am". We can not know, if we are awake or asleep. We can not know if there is a crocodile under our bed. We can not know anything. Now, while Decartes philosophical statement is quite solid in a philosophical discussion, it goes against common sence. It is my impression that most people will disagree with him. Most people will say, that if they see a cow and then turn around - the cow will still be there. Decartes said, that we can not know that. Common people will likely say he was a freak.

So on one hand we have Decartes saying, that we can not know anything ... there goes objectivity about anything but our own existance. Most people will say we can know some things. If you go to the dessert, dump 2 cows in the middle of nowhere, and 10 out of 10 people, stainding around the spot with the cows, says there are 2 cows, then they will all believe there are 2 cows. They have all observed the 2 cows, and they all agree on the count of cows, therefor they say, that it is an objective truth, that there are 2 cows. This kind of reality is much more traight forward to common people than the reality presented by Decartes. However you can argue against their observation. They could have a group hallucination. Each person could be dreaming and thus making up the other people, who will see nothing more than himself - even though a third cow was hidden behind the other 2 cows. Decartes would always be able to come up with reasons, that we can not know for sure. Therefor you may say, that the objectivity that the 10 people agreed on was in fact based on a decision to believe in their own visual perceptions. Boom - there goes objectivity.

Personally I have decided that one can be objective about some things. This belief is based on myself trusting my own sences. I have decided, that I probably will not be fooled by hallucinations, when I see a cow on the field. I have also decided that it is unlike enough, that space creatures will take away the cow when I turn around, for me to believe that the cow is also there, when I do not see it. Also, I do believe in math with numbers which are not endless. I agree on 2+2=4, and I have decided that this is objective (I have found no reason not to believe this). I will also to a great extend believe math with endless numbers, if enough numbers are used, and if I believe the uncertainty to be irelevant. But when to know if it really is irelevant? The Chaos Theory about the bug creating a storm suggests that it is difficult to know, when enough is enough. Still I don't care if I have to pay 325.45684568€ or 352.45684569€ in interests on a loan. Therefor the variation from exact reality doesn't bother me, and it is real enough for me. But I may be drifting of the off-topic about objectivity in this off-topic thread about judging others in this off-topic forum ... about soundcards

However, there are things in life, which can not be measured in numbers - and if they can the measurement tools will only be as objective, as we subjectively have decided them to be (for convinience). Even though some social scientist may say, that I am 1.3 happy, that is nothing but bull*hit. It may be usefull bull*hit though. The important word here is may. Lets say I meet some stranger on the street and I say hello - if the stranger looks angry at me, what is the reason? Maybe he does not like me. Maybe he has had a bad day. Maybe he has a neurological ilness that makes him express other feelings than the ones he actually feels? Maybe he was walking in his own thoughts thinking about some person he does not like, and he was still partly in his own world - thus responding to the person in his mind and not to me. If a child falls into a harbor, and I jump in the water risking my life to save teh child - why do I do it? Do I feel that the life of the child is more important than my life - and if so, on what back-ground is that evaluation based? Am I actually just tirred from living and looking for a way to commit suicide in a way which may cause less pain to my relatives than if they really knew my intentions - as if I hung myself? Do I do it because of strong moral rules? Do I do it because I expect some award? People are mysteries. They have all sorts of reasons for their actions. They have all sorts of thoughts about the reasons for their actions. But they do also have all sorts of unconcious reasons for their actions. If a beggar asks me for money, I may not be aware of the fact, that I will be more likely to give if the sun is shining and I am happy. There are tons of reasons behind our actions, and I don't believe in the ability to truly know them all. This is my reality. If I was grown up in another culture with another religion and other philosophies and psychologies, I may have had more belief in human ability to really reach such levels of awareness.

Objectivity
Do I believe in it?
Yes, to some extend.
Do I use it?
Yes, far more than I actually believe in it.
Do I believe my objectivity to be better than others'?
In a lot of situations, yes. If I didn't, it would not be very usefull to me, and I would be drifting from on "reality" to another all the time.
If you give me a good reason, I may change my mind - but that will have to depend on a lot of other factors too - of which I am only consciously aware of a few.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:54 am

On 2005-04-07 19:48, skwawks wrote:
Definitions are funny things aren't they in that once you start trying to define you then have to define your definition and that then requires another definition...is that a logic trap??
anyway another two cents worth ....
Objectivity is an imaginary state wherein one imagines one isn't there .
Of course though when Elvis Costello sang "I'd rather be anywhere else than here...." he was being subjective
Cheers
Paul U.F.O.

I can’t by say that i am overwhelmed by the amazing response to this thread, i mean, the reflections people are doing about “objectivity”. I am also amazed at how many exceptionally attention-grabbing points of view you are throwing here you guys.

I am surprised that musicians have this rather developed philosophical side of things and thinking, and I am glad to read all this…

Now, to what you say about definitions… I think Atom gave here a good point in saying that we all agree to something be good or bad, depending on the utility that this item gives us. And we also have speak about the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I think that you can more and less define some knowledge, as there is mathematical representations or known to all facts that will allow you to pin point to each other some complex philosophical things… but wisdom can’t really be transferred without the experience. A simple example would be the feeling of somebody that has had a baby… he would like to tell others what he feels, but people do not understand it in depth, it’s impossible, it’s a personal and unique experience that gives the person some also, unique understanding of love, life, human begins, relationships, etc., too deep to be explained in simple words, this belongs to the heart.

Of course, if we were to look for perfect definitions, they will worth not much among us even if they were lets say… “objective” , as everybody will understand it in a completely different way. The problem so, for me, it’s not a better or worst definition, but the way you understand it. Bay the way, this is what I can see here, you guys are giving such unexpected answer to what I have written in the first place, I am surprised. But for me this is great, as this allows me to open my mind to many other aspects I have never taken into account. Thank you for this!

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:56 am

On 2005-04-08 05:02, Casper wrote:
undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal";

Now I don't believe humans can shut this emotion off. But I do believe in a discussion wich is nothing more that talking about a certen subject and revealing positive and negative sides ( and the ones that blend both way's) A discussion becomes unobjective when people are mixing archuments with there opinions.

You can say
A) " I am against the war because it makes me sick to think of it"

Or B) "I am agains the war because in war there are no winners only losers because of losses on both sides" .

Now wich one is the objective one ? Or were they both unobjective?

Cool, but what do you thing gets distorted within us? You are by this saying that THERE IS something within us which is sort of an essence of something like this, that could be untouchable and objective, but that there are layers or additions that make this something objective, to be affected and so, becoming subjective.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:06 am

On 2005-04-08 07:52, kensuguro wrote:
I'll repeat in saying that objective reality comes from consensus. There is no such thing as objective reality, but only an agreement. It is even true in mathematics I think. There is nothing inherently true about 1+1=2. It's only true because we have agreed on it's objective true-ness. Even with simple things like wavelengths of light. Staments using hertz or other such "scientific" units are true only because it is based on an agreement. The agreement within a certain community is what creates an illusion of objective reality. It's not perfectly objective, because it is a collection of subjective realities, but it's damn close. So, in a sense, you can call it objective reality.

I think the underlying issue may be the question self awareness, which has a different description than the objectivism vs subjectivism conflict.

[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2005-04-08 07:54 ]

Hello Ken!
Well, interesting point, but this is perhaps applicable to human beings only, as nature does not behave this way. I explain myself: nature has laws, and those laws are clear, and they rule for everybody and everything. Those laws have been many times studied by man (let better say that they have tried it many times without success), and man has never arrived to the inside of it, but amazed by the “intelligence”, have had to say: wow, nature is much more intelligent than us, we better not change it too much, or we will destroy the stability of the world… which is already done by the way. Many could say: no, this is no true, there are great discoveries etc., but the real thing is that those discoveries are “dissociated” of the rest, they are not the understanding of the workings of nature. They are like little drops from different rivers, but by all means not the discovery and understanding of how water moves through mountains, creating lakes, and then arriving to the ocean. All science knows are little pieces of an immense, incommensurable reality beyond any perception.

Now, as we ourselves are part of nature, there mast be within us some reality as well, don’t you think? There must be some sort of natural parameters, or inborn sense of things, that could allow us to be objective, calling objectivity all this which is en perfect accordance with the laws of nature.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:58 am

On 2005-04-08 09:21, Immanuel wrote:
Nice thread Nestor - good to have a reason to think a bit again

I believe, that we deal with our knowledge in an "objectiveish" way. It is very inconvenient in our everyday life to think we know nothing for sure. "Knowing" things - or to say it in other words - to have decided some knowledge - makes decisionmaking possible. If you "know" nothing, you will have no ability to make decisions - since, on which parameters should you base your decision - and on which parameters should you decide, what is a positive outcome, and what is a negative outcome?

The subject of objectivity is closely realted to the subject of reality. Here there are different concepts about reality:

Decartes said, that we can not be sure of anything but our own existence (poor man). "I think - therefor I am". We can not know, if we are awake or asleep. We can not know if there is a crocodile under our bed. We can not know anything. Now, while Decartes philosophical statement is quite solid in a philosophical discussion, it goes against common sence. It is my impression that most people will disagree with him. Most people will say, that if they see a cow and then turn around - the cow will still be there. Decartes said, that we can not know that. Common people will likely say he was a freak.

So on one hand we have Decartes saying, that we can not know anything ... there goes objectivity about anything but our own existance. Most people will say we can know some things. If you go to the dessert, dump 2 cows in the middle of nowhere, and 10 out of 10 people, stainding around the spot with the cows, says there are 2 cows, then they will all believe there are 2 cows. They have all observed the 2 cows, and they all agree on the count of cows, therefor they say, that it is an objective truth, that there are 2 cows. This kind of reality is much more traight forward to common people than the reality presented by Decartes. However you can argue against their observation. They could have a group hallucination. Each person could be dreaming and thus making up the other people, who will see nothing more than himself - even though a third cow was hidden behind the other 2 cows. Decartes would always be able to come up with reasons, that we can not know for sure. Therefor you may say, that the objectivity that the 10 people agreed on was in fact based on a decision to believe in their own visual perceptions. Boom - there goes objectivity.

Personally I have decided that one can be objective about some things. This belief is based on myself trusting my own sences. I have decided, that I probably will not be fooled by hallucinations, when I see a cow on the field. I have also decided that it is unlike enough, that space creatures will take away the cow when I turn around, for me to believe that the cow is also there, when I do not see it. Also, I do believe in math with numbers which are not endless. I agree on 2+2=4, and I have decided that this is objective (I have found no reason not to believe this). I will also to a great extend believe math with endless numbers, if enough numbers are used, and if I believe the uncertainty to be irelevant. But when to know if it really is irelevant? The Chaos Theory about the bug creating a storm suggests that it is difficult to know, when enough is enough. Still I don't care if I have to pay 325.45684568€ or 352.45684569€ in interests on a loan. Therefor the variation from exact reality doesn't bother me, and it is real enough for me. But I may be drifting of the off-topic about objectivity in this off-topic thread about judging others in this off-topic forum ... about soundcards

However, there are things in life, which can not be measured in numbers - and if they can the measurement tools will only be as objective, as we subjectively have decided them to be (for convinience). Even though some social scientist may say, that I am 1.3 happy, that is nothing but bull*hit. It may be usefull bull*hit though. The important word here is may. Lets say I meet some stranger on the street and I say hello - if the stranger looks angry at me, what is the reason? Maybe he does not like me. Maybe he has had a bad day. Maybe he has a neurological ilness that makes him express other feelings than the ones he actually feels? Maybe he was walking in his own thoughts thinking about some person he does not like, and he was still partly in his own world - thus responding to the person in his mind and not to me. If a child falls into a harbor, and I jump in the water risking my life to save teh child - why do I do it? Do I feel that the life of the child is more important than my life - and if so, on what back-ground is that evaluation based? Am I actually just tirred from living and looking for a way to commit suicide in a way which may cause less pain to my relatives than if they really knew my intentions - as if I hung myself? Do I do it because of strong moral rules? Do I do it because I expect some award? People are mysteries. They have all sorts of reasons for their actions. They have all sorts of thoughts about the reasons for their actions. But they do also have all sorts of unconcious reasons for their actions. If a beggar asks me for money, I may not be aware of the fact, that I will be more likely to give if the sun is shining and I am happy. There are tons of reasons behind our actions, and I don't believe in the ability to truly know them all. This is my reality. If I was grown up in another culture with another religion and other philosophies and psychologies, I may have had more belief in human ability to really reach such levels of awareness.

Objectivity
Do I believe in it?
Yes, to some extend.
Do I use it?
Yes, far more than I actually believe in it.
Do I believe my objectivity to be better than others'?
In a lot of situations, yes. If I didn't, it would not be very usefull to me, and I would be drifting from on "reality" to another all the time.
If you give me a good reason, I may change my mind - but that will have to depend on a lot of other factors too - of which I am only consciously aware of a few.

Cool description of Descartes philosophy brother… he he… I think people think the caw is real, most of all when they are in a barbecue, just kidding.

There has been an experiment in Egypt, about how people perceive things. The experiment started by sending 20 persons from different places in the world, to visit Egypt, they agreed to be observed, to take notes about them and being filmed. Well, by the end, all 20 had an interview of several hours, with questions about places, people, and questions were must of all, those kind of difficult questions like: “How do you think people feel in this country?” and things of the like. Well… you can imagine what happened; the answers were so distinct from each other that psychologists said that their perception was no doubt, quite subjective. Nevertheless, they remarked that subjectivity was a point, but there was another important one, the one you are have described with the caws Immanuel, the perception from different angles!

So, if many people have observed many things, and they all have seen AND “perceived” different things that means that there are of course, many realities going on at the same time. Those realities are not FALSE to each other. If somebody sow one caw, he would swear that there was only one, but somebody taller than him sow clearly three, and there start the discussion, but both things were real.

If objectivity is possible in somebody, he should be able to perceive all those things at the same time, so to know reality as is. We all know that it is impossible to see everything physically speaking, as we only have a pair of eyes, and in the same order, a pair of ears, etc., our senses are quite restricted if you put them against the universe.

But, what about INTUITION?, if intuition is possible, and allows somebody to perceive many things at the same time, so perhaps there is something beyond the boundaries of matter, that belongs to the inner worlds or workings of mankind.