Oh, a wee bit, mainly because I fail to see how your example even relates. The air will be there whether there are lungs to breath it or not. The existence of the lungs is not necessary for air to exist. So your example does nothing to support your argument. And on that same note, the existance of the lungs is not dependent upon the existance of air... If a body is lying dead in a vacuum sealed container that is also completely absent of air, the lungs are still there in the body despite the absence of air.
I know this is a difficult concept for you, but even though I said fish, lungs, and air. I wasn't talking about fish, lungs, and air. I was stating an example of how things can be independent from one another but are required for certain processes to occur. I wasn't trying to start a biology debate with anyone. Of course you know that and don't care. You simply want to argue with me about something, and I am not particular interested in arguing with you. Before you go there, I am not interested in a grammar lesson either.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
I know this is a difficult concept for you, but even though I said fish, lungs, and air. I wasn't talking about fish, lungs, and air. I was stating an example of how things can be independent from one another but are required for certain processes to occur. I wasn't trying to start a biology debate with anyone. Of course you know that and don't care. You simply want to argue with me about something, and I am not particular interested in arguing with you. Before you go there, I am not interested in a grammar lesson either.
Nothing difficult about it. I'm showing you why your counter to Redneckronin's explanation of the requirements (or more precisely lack thereof) of objectivity is a faulty argument. Air is not required for breathing... nor are lungs, for that matter (as fish breath, obviously, with gills). Which is what I originally stated. You insist are arguing to prove... something... I don't know what, but whatever it is, it isn't to fortify your counterargument to Redneckronin.
What does appear difficult, though, is your ability to remember the chain of conversative pieces that led us here. And if I remember correctly, you jumped into the "objectivity discussion" long after I had already been in it, so this accusatory assertion is quite invalid... You disturb a hornet's nest, expect to be stung (which I believe was the original lesson I was trying to explain to you during our previous conversation)... I'll say it again, if you don't want to argue, DON'T JUMP INTO A DEBATE.
Objectivity is a concept, not a thing. Concepts cannot exist without a mind. A mind cannot exist without a person. Therefore Objectivity is never completely independent of a person.
/drop microphone /walk away
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Then please explain Objective with out there being any thought involved.
I can't explain anything at all to you without there being thought involved, nor can you understand anything I so explain without there being though involved.
Think about "Ayer's Rock / Uluru".
Now, disregard the specific name for it, and the noun we use to describe its type of object.
Think about, if you will, "that thing".
Does it exist?
Did it exist before any human had ever had a thought?
Its existence is totally independent of human thought, and or existence.
Thus a statement to the effect that "that thing exists" is objectively true.
The language we use to describe that fact requires thought, the fact itself does not.
To understand objectivity and subjectivity you first need to be able to divorce "talking about things" from "facts about things" and indeed the "language used to talk about facts about things". Facts exist independently of the language that describes them.
Then please explain Objective with out there being any thought involved.
I exist. You exist. Objective statements. They are true no matter what. I may never meet you in person... You may never see me on the street. It doesn't make those two statements any less true. Heck, you existed before I even knew of you and vice versa, before thoughts of each other even began to establish themselves.
Objectivity is a concept, not a thing. Concepts cannot exist without a mind. A mind cannot exist without a person. Therefore Objectivity is never completely independent of a person.
/drop microphone /walk away
You're confusing awareness with objectivity. Things of an objective nature exist despite anyone knowing of them or having feelings about them. I existed in your world long before we even met to have our first spat, and vice versa. Otherwise, you're saying that something cannot exist if people don't know about it, which is false.
And it goes back to the old statement... "If a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing able to hear it around does it still make a sound? I maintain no it does not because with anything to hear it there is no sound. And therefore without awareness or thought there is no objectivity.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
The sound waves that the tree makes through breaking apart and additionally through hitting the ground are still produced whether or not ears are there to translate the waves into what the brain understands as sound.
And it goes back to the old statement... "If a tree falls in the woods and there is nothing able to hear it around does it still make a sound? I maintain no it does not because with anything to hear it there is no sound. And therefore without awareness or thought there is no objectivity.
Whether or not anyone hears or sees it is irrelevant.
Objective does not mean something is true, no more than subjective means that something is false. "I exist" is a what you believe and cannot be used to reach an objective conclusion. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. "I exist" is what you believe and therefore is not an objective statement. If you say "I do not exist", that is also not an objective statement, but let's say you believed that to be true. It would take someone else besides yourself to determine if you did not exist. They would have to observe your existence and use that fact to reach the objective conclusion that you in fact do exist.
This can get extremely deep and complex and I am sure that at some point a theoretical physicist would interject with "You don't exist" and then give us the formula that proves it.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Whether or not anyone hears or sees it is irrelevant.
The objective fact is that the tree fell.
All The Best
Actually Einstein asked a similar question. "if nobody was observing the moon, would it actually be there?" Unfortunately it is one of those things that cannot be proven or disproved. For in order to prove it is there, you must in some way observe its existence. It is a paradox and has nothing to do with objectivity.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Objective does not mean something is true, no more than subjective means that something is false. "I exist" is a what you believe and cannot be used to reach an objective conclusion. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. "I exist" is what you believe and therefore is not an objective statement. If you say "I do not exist", that is also not an objective statement, but let's say you believed that to be true. It would take someone else besides yourself to determine if you did not exist. They would have to observe your existence and use that fact to reach the objective conclusion that you in fact do exist.
This can get extremely deep and complex and I am sure that at some point a theoretical physicist would interject with "You don't exist" and then give us the formula that proves it.
Objective things exist whether or not anyone knows of them. They are there whether people are aware of it or not. Just because you weren't aware of me before our first spat, does not mean I didn't exist. Again, you're assuming that awareness of something is required for its objective existence. That's not true. Awareness, and subsequently observation, is only necessary in confirmation of the existence. Not the actual existence, itself.
Objective things exist whether or not anyone knows of them. They are there whether people are aware of it or not. Just because you weren't aware of me before our first spat, does not mean I didn't exist. Again, you're assuming that awareness of something is required for its objective existence. That's not true. Awareness, and subsequently observation, is only necessary in confirmation of the existence. Not the actual existence, itself.
Okay, prove it.
I never said you didn't exist BTW. I just said that "I exist" is not an objective statement.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Prove what? That awareness, and subsequently observation, is only necessary in confirmation of existence? I existed before you were aware of me. Your awareness of me, through our first spat, confirmed that existence. I existed before my brain was advanced enough to recognize my own existence. My development of self-awareness, confirmed my existence. Hence, awareness is not necessary for something to exist, only in the confirmation of that existence.
Prove what? That awareness, and subsequently observation, is only necessary in confirmation of existence? I existed before you were aware of me. Your awareness of me, through our first spat, confirmed that existence. I existed before my brain was advanced enough to recognize my own existence. My development of self-awareness, confirmed my existence. Hence, awareness is not necessary for something to exist, only in the confirmation of that existence.
You are missing the point. "I exist" is a statement of what you believe to be a fact. If you do not believe it to be a fact then stop me and I will go no further. Facts must be supported by evidence. What evidence supports that you exist? You state that no evidence is needed and that your belief in that you exist is enough. That is not objectivity. Objectivity requires more than one point of view.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
It is impossible for something that is objective to be false. And once the truth has been established all other points of view, individually and collectively, are wrong.
You are missing the point. "I exist" is a statement of what you believe to be a fact. If you do not believe it to be a fact then stop me and I will go no further. Facts must be supported by evidence. What evidence supports that you exist? You state that no evidence is needed and that your belief in that you exist is enough. That is not objectivity. Objectivity requires more than one point of view.
No, I understand your point. You are the one missing my point. What you're showing is that the confirmation of the objective truth, "I exist," requires subjective proof. "A fact," as we semantically understand it, is just a confirmation (also read subjective acceptance), of an objective truth. An objective truth is there whether we are aware of it or not. When we become aware of it, we need subjective proof to confirm it and subsequently accept it.
It is confirmation of objectivity that requires more than one point of view. Not objectivity itself. What you view as 'objectivity' is not objectivity. It is 'confirmation of objectivity.'
It is impossible for something that is objective to be false. And once the truth has been established all other points of view, individually and collectively, are wrong.
All The Best
It is possible for objectivity to lead to false conclusions. When the facts are wrong this can occur. You can of course say that facts are facts and that once things are fact they can never be false. That mindset has been disproven time and time again in science. It also works the other way around. Some things that were once thought to be false turn out to be facts. Keplers laws of motion were thought to be flawed until the discovery of gravity by Newton decades later.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
It is possible for objectivity to lead to false conclusions. When the facts are wrong this can occur. You can of course say that facts are facts and that once things are fact they can never be false. That mindset has been disproven time and time again in science. It also works the other way around. Some things that were once thought to be false turn out to be facts. Keplers laws of motion were thought to be flawed until the discovery of gravity by Newton decades later.
That is, then, not objectivity, but 'collective subjectivity.'
No, it is called a theory. A theory is something that can not be proven, only disproven. That is science talk for "the best guess so far". The scientific equivalent to objectivity is the scientific method. The equivalent for subjectivity would be a hypothesis.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
No, it is called a theory. A theory is something that can not be proven, only disproven. That is science talk for "the best guess so far". The scientific equivalent to objectivity is the scientific method. The equivalent for subjectivity would be a hypothesis.
That still doesn't discount the fact that it is a subjective belief held by a collective (put curtly, a 'collective subjectivity'). Gravity and how it worked were objective truths before Newton's discovery, he just confirmed it. You're, again, confusing, 'confirmation of objectivity' with actual 'objectivity.' They are not the same thing.
Your associations are wrong. Theory would equal 'collectively-accepted subjective belief (also read collective subjectivity)' and Hypothesis would equal 'uniquely-held subjective belief.' The scientific method would equal "the process by which to prove objectivity." Facts would be the equivalent of Objectivity (such as 1+1=2 or A squared + B squared = C squared).
That still doesn't discount the fact that it is a subjective belief held by a collective (put curtly, a 'collective subjectivity'). Gravity and how it worked were objective truths before Newton's discovery, he just confirmed it. You're, again, confusing, 'confirmation of objectivity' with actual 'objectivity.' They are not the same thing.
Your associations are wrong. Theory would equal 'collectively-accepted subjective belief (also read collective subjectivity)' and Hypothesis would equal 'uniquely-held subjective belief.' The scientific method would equal "the process by which to prove objectivity." Facts would be the equivalent of Objectivity (such as 1+1=2 or A squared + B squared = C squared).
Casten, I am not confusing objectivity with awareness or anything else. Objectivity is not the truth. It is a means to pursue the truth. It is the absence of personal opinion and bias when analyzing parts to a problem. It is considering all points of view without interjecting your own point of view. That is what objectivity is. This is why scientific data is not considered relevant until it has been reviewed by peers. Collective subjectivity is your friends jumping off a bridge. Your mother is the objective one. She is not influenced by your friendly relationship with those that just plummeted to their doom. Listen to her.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
Comments
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
No.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
I know this is a difficult concept for you, but even though I said fish, lungs, and air. I wasn't talking about fish, lungs, and air. I was stating an example of how things can be independent from one another but are required for certain processes to occur. I wasn't trying to start a biology debate with anyone. Of course you know that and don't care. You simply want to argue with me about something, and I am not particular interested in arguing with you. Before you go there, I am not interested in a grammar lesson either.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Nothing difficult about it. I'm showing you why your counter to Redneckronin's explanation of the requirements (or more precisely lack thereof) of objectivity is a faulty argument. Air is not required for breathing... nor are lungs, for that matter (as fish breath, obviously, with gills). Which is what I originally stated. You insist are arguing to prove... something... I don't know what, but whatever it is, it isn't to fortify your counterargument to Redneckronin.
What does appear difficult, though, is your ability to remember the chain of conversative pieces that led us here. And if I remember correctly, you jumped into the "objectivity discussion" long after I had already been in it, so this accusatory assertion is quite invalid... You disturb a hornet's nest, expect to be stung (which I believe was the original lesson I was trying to explain to you during our previous conversation)... I'll say it again, if you don't want to argue, DON'T JUMP INTO A DEBATE.
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
/drop microphone /walk away
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Then please explain Objective with out there being any thought involved.
Narayan
I can't explain anything at all to you without there being thought involved, nor can you understand anything I so explain without there being though involved.
Think about "Ayer's Rock / Uluru".
Now, disregard the specific name for it, and the noun we use to describe its type of object.
Think about, if you will, "that thing".
Does it exist?
Did it exist before any human had ever had a thought?
Its existence is totally independent of human thought, and or existence.
Thus a statement to the effect that "that thing exists" is objectively true.
The language we use to describe that fact requires thought, the fact itself does not.
To understand objectivity and subjectivity you first need to be able to divorce "talking about things" from "facts about things" and indeed the "language used to talk about facts about things". Facts exist independently of the language that describes them.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
I exist. You exist. Objective statements. They are true no matter what. I may never meet you in person... You may never see me on the street. It doesn't make those two statements any less true. Heck, you existed before I even knew of you and vice versa, before thoughts of each other even began to establish themselves.
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Narayan
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Whether or not anyone hears or sees it is irrelevant.
The objective fact is that the tree fell.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
This can get extremely deep and complex and I am sure that at some point a theoretical physicist would interject with "You don't exist" and then give us the formula that proves it.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
True.
But something that is genuinely objective can not be false.
And all truths must be objectively so if they are to be called genuine truths.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Actually Einstein asked a similar question. "if nobody was observing the moon, would it actually be there?" Unfortunately it is one of those things that cannot be proven or disproved. For in order to prove it is there, you must in some way observe its existence. It is a paradox and has nothing to do with objectivity.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Okay, prove it.
I never said you didn't exist BTW. I just said that "I exist" is not an objective statement.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
You are missing the point. "I exist" is a statement of what you believe to be a fact. If you do not believe it to be a fact then stop me and I will go no further. Facts must be supported by evidence. What evidence supports that you exist? You state that no evidence is needed and that your belief in that you exist is enough. That is not objectivity. Objectivity requires more than one point of view.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
No it doesn't.
It requires a singular point of view - the truth.
It is impossible for something that is objective to be false. And once the truth has been established all other points of view, individually and collectively, are wrong.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
It is confirmation of objectivity that requires more than one point of view. Not objectivity itself. What you view as 'objectivity' is not objectivity. It is 'confirmation of objectivity.'
All you seem to be arguing is semantics.
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Richard Nixon Voice: "I Am Not a Troll"
There is nothing wrong with smoking weed. "weed smokers" are not 16yr old kids, but some 16yr old kids are weed smokers. kthxbai
It is possible for objectivity to lead to false conclusions. When the facts are wrong this can occur. You can of course say that facts are facts and that once things are fact they can never be false. That mindset has been disproven time and time again in science. It also works the other way around. Some things that were once thought to be false turn out to be facts. Keplers laws of motion were thought to be flawed until the discovery of gravity by Newton decades later.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
That still doesn't discount the fact that it is a subjective belief held by a collective (put curtly, a 'collective subjectivity'). Gravity and how it worked were objective truths before Newton's discovery, he just confirmed it. You're, again, confusing, 'confirmation of objectivity' with actual 'objectivity.' They are not the same thing.
Your associations are wrong. Theory would equal 'collectively-accepted subjective belief (also read collective subjectivity)' and Hypothesis would equal 'uniquely-held subjective belief.' The scientific method would equal "the process by which to prove objectivity." Facts would be the equivalent of Objectivity (such as 1+1=2 or A squared + B squared = C squared).
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Casten, I am not confusing objectivity with awareness or anything else. Objectivity is not the truth. It is a means to pursue the truth. It is the absence of personal opinion and bias when analyzing parts to a problem. It is considering all points of view without interjecting your own point of view. That is what objectivity is. This is why scientific data is not considered relevant until it has been reviewed by peers. Collective subjectivity is your friends jumping off a bridge. Your mother is the objective one. She is not influenced by your friendly relationship with those that just plummeted to their doom. Listen to her.
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview